Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

§ 1070. General and special school funds; how apportioned.

Public school funds raised by the state for distribution are to be apportioned in the manner provided by law.31 This is usually upon the basis of attendance or number of resident pupils.32 Where specified tax levies are made for the maintenance of a par

bonds used in paying off valid prior indebtedness will not be held illegal and can be enforced to that extent. State v. Staub, 61 Conn. 553, 23 Atl. 924.

Section 2228 Conn. Gen. Stats.

is a sufficient appropriation of the income of the school fund to warrant its distribution under the specific appropriation act General Statutes 1888, §§ 377-384.

Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. People, 195 Ill. 423, 63 N. E. 262. A tax levied to pay an indebtedness incurred in excess of a constitutional limitation may be defeated by the objection that it is to pay an unconstitutional debt. Grady v. Pruitt, 23 Ky. L. R. 506, 63 S. W. 283; Lancaster City School Dist. v. Lamprecht Bros. Co., 198 Pa. 504, 48 Atl. 434. Bonds issued for the payment of a valid indebtedness not void. Wilson v. Board of Education of Huron, 12 S. D. 535, 81 N. W. 952. A board of education duly authorized to issue bonds is estopped to allege that the money realized from their sale was misapplied. See, also, Benton v. Scott, 168 Mo. 378, 68 S. W. 78, and §§ 140 et seq., and 169 et seq., ante.

31 City of New Orleans v. Fisher (C. C. A.) 91 Fed. 574. Interest acIcruing on delinquent school taxes which belong to a school district is merely an incident to the principal and should be paid to the district to which it belongs. Bay View School Dist. v. Linscott, 99 Cal. 25, 33 Pac. 781; State v. Mathews, 150

Ind. 597, 50 N. E. 572; Posey v. Corydon Public School, 19 Ky. L. R. 466, 38 S. W. 1063; Moiles v. Watson, 60 Mich. 415, 27 N. W. 553; State v. McConnel, 8 Neb. 28, construing Neb. Const. art. 8, § 5; St. Patrick's Orphan Asylum v. Board of Education of Rochester, 34 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 227; School Board of Brooklyn v. Board of Education of New York, 34 App. Div. 49, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1000, 54 N. Y. Supp. 185.

32 Merritt v. School Dist., 54 Ark. 468, 16 S. W. 287; Maddox v. Neal, 45 Ark. 121; Stockton School Dist. v. Wright, 134 Cal. 64, 66 Pac. 34; State v. Barnes, 22 Fla. 8; Taggart v. State, 142 Ind. 668, 40 N. E. 260, 42 N. E. 352, overruling School City of South Bend v. Jaquith, 90 Ind. 495; Louisville School Board v. Superintendent of Public Instruction, 102 Ky. 394, 43 S. W. 718; Louisville School Board v. McChesney, 109 Ky. 9, 58 S. W. 427. Construing Ky. St. § 4375, which provides that any difference between the estimated and the actual revenue of a school fund of any school year shall be taken into account in the statement and payment for the succeeding school year. Deckerville High School Dist. v. School Dist. No. 3, 131 Mich. 272, 90 N. W. 1064. Maintenance of school for the maximum of three months in each year necessary to entitle the school district to its proportion of primary school fund for coming year.

Jamison V. Town of Houston

ticular public school or public college or university, it is necessary that the sums raised from this source be used strictly for the purpose authorized by law.33 The general principle, if any can be stated, in respect to the apportionment of school funds is that the state in providing certain means of maintenance has considered the plan or scheme of public education as a whole and devoted to certain agencies such amounts as it has considered advisable and most necessary to the maintenance of the system as a whole. The laws relative to the apportionment of public school funds should, therefore, be strictly construed and literally followed.

§ 1071. School funds; how disbursed; purpose.

34

Funds raised for educational purposes cannot be diverted to other objects.35 This principle applies equally to public funds

(Miss.) 15 So. 114; School Dist. No. 7 v. Patterson, 10 Mont. 17, 24 Pac. 698; Fiske v. School Dist. of Lincoln, 58 Neb. 163, 78 N. W. 392; State v. Dovey, 19 Nev. 396, 12 Pac. 910; Romero v. Board of Education of Las Vegas, 10 N. M. 67, 61 Pac. 109; School Board of Brooklyn v. Board of Education of New York, 34 App. Div. 49, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1000, 54 N. Y. Supp. 185, affirmed 157 N. Y. 566, 52 N. E. 583; Trustees of Union College v. Coughlin, 159 N. Y. 540; Van Dolsen v. Board of Education, 162 N. Y. 446; Porter v. State, 78 Tex. 591, 14 S. W. 794; Merrill v. Spencer, 14 Utah, 273, 46 Pac. 1096. See, also, Joint School Dist. No. 8 v. School Dist. No. 5, 92 Wis. 608, 66 N. W. 794. Apportionment of school fund based on maximum time of maintenance of school.

33 Vincenheller v. Reagan, 69 Ark. 460, 64 S. W. 278; Stockton School Dist. v. Wright, 134 Cal. 64, 66 Pac. 34; Cooke v. School Dist. No. 12, 12 Colo. 453, 21 Pac. 496, 719. The making of an estimate as required by law by the county superintend

ent does not of itself vest in the several districts the ownership of their respective shares of public school moneys. Zartman v. State, 109 Ind. 360; Sargent v. Board of Education, 35 Misc. 321, 71 N. Y. Supp. 954; Heston v. Mayhew, 9 S. D. 501, 70 N. W. 635.

34 Claybrook v. City of Owensboro, 23 Fed. 634; Merritt v. School Dist. 54 Ark. 468, 16 S. W. 287. A school district which has been omitted in the apportioning of a school fund may, by mandamus, compel the payment of the funds belonging to it. School Dist. No. 3 v. School Dist. No. 1, 63 Mich. 51, 29 N. W. 489; School Dist. v. Morrill, 59 N. H. 367; People v. Glowacki, 2 T. & C. (N. Y.) 436. But see State v. Fay, 36 La. Ann. 241.

35 City of Albertville v. Rains, 107 Ala. 691, 18 So. 255; Francis v. Peevey, 132 Ala. 58, 31 So. 372; Hotchkiss v. Plunkett, 60 Conn. 230 22 Atl. 535. Public funds cannot be used by a board of education of a school district to defend a law suit against them personally in respect

raised for other purposes. The use of them in other ways will be regarded as a misappropriation for which their custodians are civilly and personally charged and a criminal liability may also arise in many cases. The purpose for which school funds are ordinarily used are either the payment of the current expenses, including the payment of wages and the compensation of teachers or instructors,37 the purchase of libraries,38 the proper equipment for conducting the work of the particular school or college, and

to matters connected with the performance of their duties. State v. Fitzpatrick, 5 Idaho, 499, 51 Pac. 112; Sherlock v. Village of Winnetka, 68 Ill. 530; Case v. Blood, 71 Iowa, 632, 33 N. W. 144. A tax payer, though a nonresident, has such an interest in a school district as to give him a right of action to compel a proper administration of school funds.

Collins v. Henderson, 74 Ky. (11 Bush) 74. The appropriation of school funds for the purchase of "Collin's Historical Sketches of Kentucky" is unconstitutional, it not being in aid of common schools, within the meaning of the constitution.

City of Louisville v. Louisville School Board, 17 Ky. L. R. 697, 32 S. W. 406; Underwood v. Wood, 93 Ky. 177, 19 S. W. 405, 15 L. R. A. 825; Knox County v. Hunolt, 110 Mo. 67, 19 S. W. 628; Black V. Cornell, 30 Mo. App. 641; Herman v. City of Crete, 9 Neb. 350; State v. Westerfield, 23 Nev. 468, 49 Pac. 119; School Dist. v. Twitchell, 63 N. H. 11; City of Hoboken v. Ivison, 29 N. J. Law (5 Dutch.) 65; Burhans v. Union Free School Dist. No. 1, 24 App. Div. 429, 48 N. Y. Supp. 702; Wright v. Rosenbloom, 52 App. Div. 579, 66 N. Y. Supp. 165. A board of education is not authorized to defray from its contingent

39

36

fund the expenses of two members of the board and its clerk in attending a distant meeting of an annual national association. Wilson v. Board of Education of Huron, 12 S. D. 535, 81 N. W. 952. A board of education duly authorized to issue bonds is estopped to allege that the money realized from their sale was misapplied. State v. Banks, 106 Tenn. 394, 61 S. W. 778.

36 Edmundson v. Jackson Independent School Dist., 98 Iowa, 639; Sheldon v. Purdy, 17 Wash. 135, 49 Pac. 228. Funds appropriated by the state for current expenses cannot be used for the payment of interest on bonds issued for the building of a school house. The term "current expenses" means continuing regular expenditures for the maintenance of the schools.

37 Thomas v. Trustees of Schools, 16 Ill. 163; Harrison Tp. v. Conrad, 26 Ind. 337. A teacher not having the certificate of qualifications required by law cannot recover for services. Stuart v. School Dist. No. 1, 30 Mich. 69.

38 Clark v. School Directors, 78 Ill. 474. But see First Nat. Bank of Elkhart v. Osborne, 18 Ind. App. 442, 48 N. E. 256.

39 Springfield Furniture Co. V. School Dist. No. 4, 67 Ark. 236, 54 S. W. 217; Honey Creek School Tp. v. Barnes, 119 Ind. 213; W. P. Myers

the securing of necessary supplies in providing heat, water and other common expenses coming under this head.40

Improvements and general expenses. Another purpose for which public school funds can be legally used is in the making of improvements when authorized by law and in the manner designated. These include the erection of public school buildings for class room or laboratory work,42 the purchase of grounds or sites and their improvement,43 and, in general, expenditures which do not come under the head of ordinary or current expenses.**

§ 1072. Manner of disbursement.

Public schools must necessarily act through their officers or agents who are strictly limited in respect to their acts on account of which their principal may be held responsible. This principle

Pub. Co. v. White River School Tp. 28 Ind. App. 91, 62 N. E. 66; Yaggy v. Monroe Dist. Tp.,.80 Iowa, 121; Knabe v. Board of Education, 67 Mich. 262, 34 N. W. 568. Board of trustees of graded schools have authority to purchase a piano for high school purposes.

40 Hemme v. School Dist. No. 4, 30 Kan. 377; Bryan v. Board of Education of Perry, 7 Okl. 160, 54 Pac. 409. School moneys may be used for the insurance of school property. See, also, relative to the same question, School Dist. No. 5 v. Hopkins, 7 Okl. 154, 54 Pac. 437.

Hackett v. Emporium Borough School Dist., 150 Pa. 220, 24 Atl. 627.

School room rental authorized. But see Estes v. School Dist., No. 19, 33 Me. 170.

41 City of Lafayette v. Jenners, 10 Ind. 70.

42 Hale v. Brown, 70 Ark. 471, 69 S. W. 260.

43 Township Board of Education v. Carolan, 182 Ill. 119, 55 N. E. 58. An unauthorized purchase of a site for a high school may be subse

quently ratified by a vote of the electors of the school district. Brock v. Bruce, 59 Vt. 313, 10 Atl. 93. The presumption of authority exists.

44 People v. Rea, 185 Ill. 633, 57 N. E. 778, affirming 84 Ill. App. 504; Flint River Independent Dist. v. Kelley, 55 Iowa, 568; Bogaard v. Independent Dist. of Plainview, 93 Iowa, 269, 61 N. W. 859; Mason v. Fractional School Dist. No. 1, 34 Mich. 228; Jacobson v. Cary, 51 Neb. 762, 71 N. W. 723. The loss of moneys through the insolvency of a bank in which they are deposited, raised by taxation, for the purpose of paying indebtedness of a school district does not fall upon the creditor but upon the district. Hartford School Dist. v. School Dist. No. 13, 69 Vt. 147, 37 Atl. 252. A school district can lawfully pay a just debt though barred by the statute of limitations.

N. J. Laws 1890, c. 177, authorizes the purchase and display of United States flags upon and near public school buildings.

applies to the disbursement of public school funds. By law certain officials are charged with the duty of caring for and disbursing them.45 The disbursement, therefore, to be legal, must be made 46 or authorized 7 by the proper official or officials and in the manner required by law.48

Form of disbursement. School funds are commonly disbursed through the medium of school orders or school warrants which are written orders executed by the proper officers, directed to the proper disbursing officer, and authorizing the payment of the sums named in the manner and at the time specified.50 The manner of issuing these, their form and legality, has been considered in previous sections.31

§ 1073. School districts; organization.

For school purposes and the better operation of a public school system, a state is divided into common, special, and independent

45 Lovingston v. Board of Trustees, 99 Ill. 564; Pfau v. State, 148 Ind. 539, 47 N. E. 927; Auditor v. Holland, 77 Ky. (14 Bush) 147. The power vested by the Ky. Const. to the legislature to control the school fund cannot be surrendered to the county courts.

46 Davis v. State, 44 Ind. 38.

47 School Dist. No. 2 of Multnomah County v. Lambert, 28 Or. 209, 42 Pac. 221.

48 Kennedy v. Miller, 97 Cal. 429, 32 Pac. 558; California University v. January, 66 Cal. 507; State v. Moore, 36 Neb. 579, 54 N. W. 866; McCornick v. Thatcher, 8 Utah, 294, 30 Pac. 1091, 17 L. R. A. 243.

49 Shakespear v. Smith, 77 Cal. 638, 20 Pac. 294. An order for the payment of school funds drawn with the concurrence of two only of the three trustees of a district, one of whom is interested in it, is void. Faulk v. McCartney, 42 Kan. 695, 22 Pac. 712; State v. Bloom, 19 Neb. 562; Zimmerman v. Mathe, 49 N. J.

Law, 45, 7 Atl. 674; State v. Hart, 106 Tenn. 269, 61 S. W. 780; Doyle v. Gill, 59 Wis. 518.

50 Phelps v. District Tp. of Summit, 90 Iowa, 53, 57 N. W. 642. School directors cannot, under Iowa Code, 2077, contract that school orders shall draw 10 per cent interest. State v. Slavan, 11 Wis. 153. 51 Board of Education v. Foley, 88 Ill. App. 470; School Dist. No. 5 v. First Nat. Bank, 63 Kan. 668, 66 Pac. 630. A school district is estopped from interposing the defense of the statute of limitations when it appears that at no time since the debt was accrued had there been any money in the treasurer's hands applicable to the payment of the orders issued for its payment.

Meyer v. School Dist. No. 31, 4 S. D. 420, 57 N. W. 68. A school dis

trict order may be impeached though regular on its face and therefore prima facie legal. Coler v. Sterling, 15 S. D. 415, 89 N. W.

« AnteriorContinuar »