Young v. Board of Education of Independent School Dist. No. 47, Dassel
| Decision Date | 03 August 1893 |
| Parties | Austin H. Young v. Board of Education of Independent School Dist. No. 47, Dassel |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued June 26, 1893.
Appeal by defendant, the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 47, Dassel, in Meeker County, from an order of the District Court of that County, Gorham Powers, J., made February 14, 1893, denying its motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff, Austin H. Young, was on January 26, 1891 appointed by the District Court of said County, receiver of the property of Stevens & Co., insolvent bankers of Litchfield in that County. He accepted the trust, and brought this action to recover an overdraft of the School District amounting to $ 205.15. The defendant answered, denying that it borrowed the money or overdrew. On the trial it appeared that in October, 1885, the School District officers obtained the money and used it to complete the schoolhouse they were building. On January 22, 1886, the trustees, or some of them gave Stevens & Co. an order on the School District treasurer for the amount, but it was not paid for want of funds. The Judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff for this amount and interest. Defendant moved for a new trial. Being denied it appeals.
Order reversed, and new trial granted.
E. P. Peterson and Spooner & Taylor, for appellant.
In order to entitle the plaintiff to recover in this action it must appear that the loan effected, or the agreement made, with the bank for an overdraft was the act of the proper officers of the School District, and that such act was authorized by law, or that it was made under such circumstances as to raise a presumption that it was with the common consent of the district. This does not appear. Andrews v. School District, 37 Minn. 96; Currie v. School District, 35 Minn. 163.
Young & Nye and Daniel Fish, for respondent.
Defendant complains that it is required to repay $ 205.15 of the moneys of Stevens & Co., which it confessedly had and used in the construction of its schoolhouse. The proposition of law for which defendant contends is, that inasmuch as it obtained the money illegally, therefore it should be permitted to keep it. This sort of thing has often been attempted in the past, but without much success. It is well settled that municipalities, as well as private corporations, must account for money or other property applied by their officers to authorized uses, although the money or property so applied was received under a contract which was wholly void. Morawetz, Corp. § 718; Marsh v. Fulton Co., 10 Wall. 676; Borough of Henderson v. Sibley Co., 28 Minn. 515; Leonard v. City of Canton, 35 Miss. 189; Turner v. Cruzen, 70 Iowa 202; Moore v. Mayor, 73 N.Y. 238; Brady v. Mayor, 20 N.Y. 312; Paul v. Kenosha, 22 Wis. 266; Clark v. School District, 3 R. I. 199; San Francisco Gas Co. v. San Francisco, 9 Cal. 453; Grogan v. San Francisco, 18 Cal. 590; Dill v. Wareham, 7 Met. 438; County Com'rs v. Hunt, 5 Ohio St. 488.
The plaintiff recovered a verdict, under the direction of the court, for $ 205 and interest for money advanced by Stevens & Co., of whose insolvent estate the plaintiff is receiver. The evidence in the case tended to show that the defendant had expended the proceeds of bonds lawfully issued in the erection of a schoolhouse for the district, but the money derived from the bonds was insufficient to complete the building, and thereupon the treasurer of the district, one Peterson, arranged with Stevens & Co., who were bankers, for additional funds to complete the same, and drew checks upon them for the amount of $ 205, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial