trustees, 167 School officers are agents of a public quasi corporation and the use of this phrase leads to an application of the principles of the limited power of agency and a strict accountability. The qualified voters of the district in the manner provided by law alone possess the power to authorize the acquirement by purchase or otherwise of school property of this class together with its disposition whether by sale or otherwise, the mortgaging of that property or any portion to secure the payment of an obligation or the issue of bonds.168 In some instances this power of a school district is exercised in conjunction with either the state or county superintendent of public instruction or official body. exercising the same functions. The rule may also differ in cities or in graded or high school districts where by law the board of education or controlling body may be given the right to acquire or dispose of school property without the special authorization of the voters of the district.169 §1084. Erection and management. In the school board as may be authorized by law directly or indirectly through the qualified voters of a district is vested the right to supervise the erection, repair and use of school build 69 Pac. 460. A state land board authorized to loan the school fund may assign a mortgage given to secure a loan, although this power is not expressly conferred by statute. But see Pennoyer v. Willis (Or.) 32 Pac. 57. 167 Morris v. School Dist. No. 86, 63 Ark. 149, 37 S. W. 569. A school district may sue for trespass on lands dedicated for school purposes. Board of Education v. Fowler, 19 Cal. 11; Trustees of Schools v. Petefish, 181 Ill. 255, 54 N. E. 920; Curtis v. Board of Education, 43 Kan. 138, 23 Pac. 98; Luckett v. Buckman, 8 Ky. L. R. 255, 1 S. W. 391; Telle v. School Board, 44 La. Ann. 365, 10 So. 801; State v. Benton, 29 Neb. 460, 45 N. W. 794. See, also, Board of Education of Monroe Tp. v. Board of Education of Dell Roy, 46 168 Anderson V. Independent School Dist. of Angus, 78 Fed. 750; Pace v. Jefferson County Com'rs, 20 Ill. 644. To constitute a building a public school house it must be under the immediate control of the school directors. Salisbury V. School Dist. of Highland Tp., 101 Iowa, 556, 70 N. W. 706. A school site may be measured so as to include the area prescribed by law exclusive of a road. George v. Inhabitants of School Dist. in Mendon, 47 Mass. (6 Metc.) 497. See, also, Cousens v. Inhabitants of School Dist., 67 Mo. 280. 169 Erwin v. St. Joseph's School Board, 2 McCrary, 608, 12 Fed. 680. But enlarged powers do not ordi ings.170 The rule stated in the last section in respect to the varying authority of boards of directors in districts of different grades also applies. The officers of a common school district must derive their authority from a vote of the district and have no power in themselves to erect school buildings or make permanent and extensive repairs.171 On the other hand the officials of districts other than common school are usually granted by statute ample powers to construct and repair or lease school buildings within their jurisdiction.172 The same difference in authority applies to a large extent, in the management and control of school buildings; 173 a determination of the location 174 or a change in the location of a narily authorize a board to create a debt for building a school house and issue bonds to pay the same. Roberts v. Louisville School Board, 16 Ky. L. R. 181, 26 S. W. 814. 170 Shires v. Irwin, 87 Ill. App. 111. An election to build a new school house cannot be made void by the neglect or omission of election officers to make the proper returns. Braden v. McNutt, 114 Ind. 214, 16 N. E. 170; Carson v. State, 27 Ind. 465; Carpenter v. Independent Dist., 95 Iowa, 300; Rodgers v. Colfax Independent School Dist., 100 Iowa, 317; McCullough v. School Directors of 4th Ward, 11 Pa. 476; In re Walker, 179 Pa. 24, 36 Atl. 148; Swadley v. Haynes (Tenn. App.) 41 S. W. 1066. Ch. 171 Sheldon v. Centre School Dist., 25 Conn. 224. The discretionary power given to inhabitants of school districts in respect to the erection of school houses will not be interfered with except in cases where it has been manifestly abused. Beverly v. Sabin, 20 Ill. 357; Board of Education v. Roehr, 23 Ill. App. 629; Ziesing v. Matthiessen, 79 Ill. App. 560; Township Board of Education v. Carolan, 182 Ill. 119, 55 N. E. 58, reversing 81 Ill. App. 359; Soper v. Inhabitants of School Dist. No. 9, 2 172 See § 1080, ante. 173 Kreatz v. St. Cloud School Dist., 82 Minn. 516, 85 N. W. 518. 174 Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank v. School Dist. No. 53, 6 Dak. 255, 42 N. W. 767; Merritt v. Farris, 22 Ill. 303; School Directors v. Wright, 43 Ill. App. 270; Leavitt v. Eastman, 77 Me. 117; Ayers v. building from one place to another part of the district.175 In common school districts these questions must be determined by a vote of the district,176 while in independent, graded or municipal school districts the board of trustees have the legal authority to act upon these matters without other authority than that given by statute. Where a change of location or the selection of a site for a school building is made dependent upon the vote of the district, one made in any other manner will not be binding.177 The approval of a county or of a state superintendent of public instruction or some official body performing the same duties may be required by law and, therefore, necessary to a legal selection of a site for a school house.178 School buildings are constructed for public edu School Dist. of Cornish, 67 N. H. 169, 29 Atl. 416; McCrea v. School Dist. of Pine Tp., 145 Pa. 550; Bean v. Prudential Committee, 38 Vt. 177; Egaard v. Dahlke, 109 Wis. 366, 85 N. W. 369. But see State v. Watson (Tenn. Ch. App.) 39 S. W. 536; Roth v. Marshall, 158 Pa. 272, 27 Atl. 945. The discretion of a board of school directors in respect to the location of a school house is not subject to review by a court of equity. 175 School Directors v. People, 90 Ill. App. 670; Kiehna v. Mansker, 178 Ill. 15, 52 N. E. 1047; Day v. Hulpieu, 8 Kan. App. 742, 54 Pac. 926; Moore v. State, 9 Kan. App. 489, 58 Pac. 1004; State v. Marshall, 13 Mont. 136, 32 Pac. 648; McLain v. Maricle, 60 Neb. 353, 83 N. W. 85; Holbrook v. Faulkner, 55 N. H. 311; Graves v. Jasper School Tp., 2 S. D. 414, 50 N. W. 904. But see Ruble v. School Dist. No. 5, 42 Ill. App. 483. 176 Stadtler v. School Dist. No. 40, 61 Minn. 259, 63 N. W. 638; Webb v. School Dist. No. 3, 83 Minn. 111, 85 N. W. 932; Seibert v. Botts, 57 Mo. 430; Wilber v. Woolley, 44 Neb. 739, 62 N. W. 1095; Zimmerman v. State, 60 Neb. 633, 83 N. W. 919; Farnum's Petition, 51 N. H. 376. But see Vance v. Wilton Dist. Tp., 23 Iowa, 408; Carpenter v. Independent Dist. No. 5, 95 Iowa, 300, 63 N. W. 708. See, also, cases cited in two preceding notes. 177 Sligh v. Bowers, 62 S. C. 409, 40 S. E. 885. 178 State v. Custer, 11 Ind. 210. Mandamus will lie to compel trustees to erect a school house according to the superintendent's decision. State v. Wilson, 149 Ind. 253, 48 N. E. 1030; Kessler v. State, 146 Ind. 221, 45 N. E. 102; Henricks V. Ståte, 151 Ind. 454, 50 N. E. 559, 51 N. E. 933; Knight v. Woods, 129 Ind. 101, 28 N. E. 306; Carnahan v. State, 155 Ind. 156, 57 N. E. 717; Vance v. Wilton Dist. Tp., 23 Iowa, 408; Newby v. Free, 72 Iowa, 379, 34 N. W. 168; Independent Dist. of Center v. Gookin, 72 Iowa, 387, 34 N. W. 174; Davis v. Humphrey, 21 Ky. L. R. 660, 52 S. W. 946; Adams v. Slate, 65 N. H. 188, 18 Atl. 321; Leighton v. Ossipee School Dist., 66 N. H. 548, 31 Atl. 899; Moss v Board of Education, 58 Ohio St. 354, 50 N. E. 921; Cottrell's Appeal, 10 R. I. 615. See §§ 1076 and 1077, ante. cation and ordinarily cannot be occupied for other purposes.179 Their use for the holding of political or religious meetings, unless specially authorized, is unwarranted and illegal.180 A different rule, however, ordinarily obtains when a school house is used for school society meetings, lectures or other purposes of an educational nature.181 A statutory provision commonly found is one which prohibits the disturbance of any lawful school meeting and a liberal construction is usually given such a provision.182 § 1085. School furniture; libraries and supplies. To a varying extent as determined by the character of a school district whether common, graded, normal or that of a munici pality, is given to the school board of trustees or directors, the power to acquire the necessary furniture for the proper equipment of school houses. 183 This rule also includes the purchase and maintenance of school libraries 184 and the purchase of all necessary supplies not included within the items given above.185 The 179 Board of Education of Twiggs County v. McRee, 88 Ga. 214, 14 S. E. 200. Public school houses cannot be used for carrying on private school. Weir v Day, 35 Ohio St. 143. Lease of a public school for a private school may be restrained at the suit of a resident taxpayer of the district. Russell v. Dodds, 37 Vt. 497. Lease of school house during vacation for private school held good. School Dist. No. 8 v. Arnold, 21 Wis. 657. 180 Boyd v. Mitchell, 69 Ark. 202, 62 S. W. 61; Scofield v. Eighth School Dist., 27 Conn. 499; Nichols V. School Directors, 93 Ill. 61; Townsend v. Hagan, 35 Iowa, 194; Davis v. Boget, 50 Iowa, 11; Eckhardt v. Darby, 118 Mich. 199, 76 N. W. 761; Dorton v. Hearn, 67 Mo. 301. But see Millard v. Board of Education, 121 Ill. 297, 10 N. E. 669; Swadley v. Haynes (Tenn. Ch. App.) 41 S. W. 1066. 181 Sheldon v. Centre School Dist., 25 Conn. 224; Harmony Tp. v. Os borne, 9 Ind. 458. But see Bender v. Streabich, 182 Pa. 251, 37 Atl. 853. 182 State v. Gager, 26 Conn. 607. A singing school included within an act prohibiting the disturbance of any district school or any public, private or select school while the same is in session. 183 Hamtramck Tp. v. Holihan, 46 Mich. 127; Stephenson v. Union Seating Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 16, 62 S. W. 128. But see State v. Sherman, 90 Ind. 123; Currie v. School Dist. No. 26, 35 Minn. 163, 27 N. W. 922. 184 See, also, § 1071, ante. 185 Johnson v. School Corp. of Cedar, 117 Iowa, 319, 90 N. W. 713; School Dist. No. 29 v. Perkins, 21 Kan. 536. A stereoscope and steroscopic views are not "necessary appendages for the school house" within the meaning of Kan. Gen. St. p. 925, § 46. School Dist. No. officials of common school districts are restricted in respect to the purchase of any of the articles named.186 Their powers are strictly limited and for expenditures in excess of a certain amount or for supplies not an absolute necessity,187 they are required to obtain authority from the voters of the district. Officials of schools of a higher grade or of municipal corporations proper are commonly granted larger powers.188 Limitation on indebtedness incurred. Whatever the character, however, of the school district, it or its officials may be limited in their purchase of property of any kind by statutory or constitutional provisions limiting the expenditure of public moneys, the rate of taxation or the incurring of indebtedness.189 $1086. Contracts. The subject of municipal contracts has been fully considered in previous sections to which reference is made.190 The principles 17 v. Swayze, 29 Kan. 211. Purchase of mathematical chart authorized. Honaker v. Board of Education of Pocatalico Dist., 42 W. Va. 170, 24 S. E. 544, 32 L. R. A. 413. 186 Andrews v. School Dist. No. 4, 37 Minn. 96, 33 N. W. 217; Johnson v. School Dist. No. 1, 67 Mo. 319; Board of Education v. Andrews, 51 Ohio St. 199, 37 N. E. 260. 187 Litten v. Wright School Tp., 1 Ind. App. 92, 27 N. E. 329. 188 City of Baltimore v. Weatherby, 52 Md. 442. 189 Husbands v. Talley, 3 Pen. (Del.) 88, 47 Atl. 1009; Williams v. Town of Albion, 58 Ind. 329; Roseboom v. Jefferson School Tp., 122 Ind. 377, 23 N. E. 796; Austin v. District Tp. of Colony, 51 Iowa, 102, 49 N. W. 1051; Macklin v. Common School Dist. No. 9, 88 Ky. 592, 11 S. W. 657; Greenbanks v. Boutwell, 43 Vt. 207; Davis v. Board of Education of Ft. Spring Dist., 38 W. Va. 382, 18 S. E. 588. See, also, §§ 140 et seq., and 169 et seq., ante. 190 Sparta School Tp. v. Mendell, 138 Ind. 188, 37 N. E. 604. A contract made by the predecessor of a school trustee cannot be ignored by him because of mere formal or technical defects. Grady v. Pruitt, 23 Ky. L. R. 506, 63 S. W. 283. The presumption exists that a contract is the contract of the school district and not the personal obligation of the trustees. Waldron v. Lee, 22 Mass. (5 Pick.) 323. The limits of a school district cannot be changed so as to impair a contract obligation. Farrell v. School Dist. No. 2, 98 Mich. 43, 56 N. W. 1053. A legal contract must be carried out by the successor to the official making it. See Sidney School Furniture Co. v. Warsaw Tp. School Dist., 158 Pa. 35, 27 Atl. 856. Rescission of contract by school board. See Western Pub. House v. Murdick, 4 S. D. 207, 56 N. W. 120, 21 L. R. A. 671 for contract held to be a personal one of the school board. Carper v. Cook, 39 W. Va. 346, 19 S. E. 379. See § 246 et seq., ante. |