Wright v. Sch. Dist. No. 97, Canadian Cnty.
| Decision Date | 26 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 2307 |
| Citation | 36 Okla. 294,1912 OK 786,128 P. 241 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. SCHOOL DIST. No. 97, CANADIAN COUNTY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 TROVER AND CONVERSION--When Action Maintainable. The director and clerk of a school district issued a warrant of the face value of $ 500 payable to plaintiff, for which he gave his check for $ 400, knowing that the check would be cashed and the money used. The warrant was void because not issued for a purpose authorized by law. Held, that plaintiffs cannot recover the amount for which the check was given in an action for the conversion thereof.
Gilbert & Bond and W. H. Criley, for plaintiff in error.
Lucius Babcock, for defendant in error.
¶1 In March, 1903, H. H. Best and J. A. Showen, as director and clerk of school district No. 97 of Canadian county, issued to plaintiff, Wright, a district warrant for the sum of $ 500. At the time it was issued there had been no appropriation made to pay it, and it was not issued against any fund either in the hands of the treasurer or in process of collection. The plaintiff, Wright, paid these officials $ 400 for the warrant, and they used the money to purchase material and to pay for labor in building the schoolhouse in said school district. This suit was originally brought May 18, 1909, by the plaintiff to recover on the warrant. The defendant school district filed an answer in which it alleged that about the time the warrant was issued the electors for the school district voted for the erection of a schoolhouse in said district, and that it was the mutual understanding of the electors at the meeting that the material and labor in and about the erection of the building was to be contributed by the electors and patrons of the school district; that no election for the purpose of voting bonds for the erection of said schoolhouse had ever been held, and there were no moneys in the treasury of the school district with which to defray the expenses of the construction of said building; that no contract for the construction of such building had ever been entered into, or authorized to be entered into, by the electors of said school district; that the warrant was issued without authority and was not in payment of any bond or other valid subsisting indebtedness pursuant to any valid contract of the school district; that it was issued for the purpose of selling the same for less than its face value, and raising funds for the erection of the schoolhouse in the district; that the warrant when issued was in excess of 4 per cent. of the assessed value of the property of said school district and was illegal and void. After this answer was filed, plaintiff amended his petition--the defendant consenting to the amendment--and alleged that on the 14th day of March, 1903, the defendant wrongfully obtained possession of $ 400, the property of plaintiff, and between that date and the third Monday in May of the same year converted the money to its own use; that no part of the money had ever been returned or paid by the defendant to plaintiff; that on the 24th of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial