Wise v. Bull — 141 N.Y.S. 917

Majority

p. 917

(80 Misc. Rep. 205.)

WISE, School Trustee, v. BULL et al.

(Chautauqua County Court.

March, 1913.)

Headnote

1. Schools and School Distbicts (§ 92*)—Fiscal Management.

Educational Law (Consol. Laws 1910, c. 16) § 276, subd. 2, requires the report of a school district trustee to contain the amount of the drafts upon the supervisor and treasurer or collector for payment of teachers’ salaries and for the purchase of books and apparatus, and the manner in which such money has been expended; and subdivision 6 requires^ the report to contain the amount of money for teachers’ salaries^ in addition to the public money paid therefor, the amount of taxes levied for purchasing sehoolhouses and sites, building schoolhouses, etc. Held, that the statutes require the trustee’s report to state the amount of the receipts and payments by the district, including the amount of drafts upon the supervisor and collector.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Cent. Dig. §§ 214, 215; Dec. Dig. § 92.*]-

2. Schools and School Distbicts (§ 63*)—Fiscal Management.

In absence of a showing that public moneys apportioned to a town school district were paid to the collector, he was not accountable for money retained by the town supervisor and disbursed by him upon the order of the trustee, pursuant to Educational Law (Consol. Laws 1910, c. 16) § 275, subds. 11, 13.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Cent. Dig. §§ 114, 149-160; Dec. Dig. § 63.*]

3. Schools and School Distbicts (§ 63*)-—Fiscal Management.

Where a school district trustee’s report did not show whether the balance set forth therein was in the hands of the supervisor or collector, the sureties of the collector were not liable for such balance.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Cent. Dig. §§ 114, 149-160; Dec. Dig. § 63.^[1] 1

Appeal from Justice Court.

Action by Nicholas A. Wise, as sole trustee of School District No. 5 of the Town of Pomfret, against W. A. Bull and another. From a judgment for plaintiff in justice’s court, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Thomas J. Cummings, of Dunkirk, for appellants.

Hermon J. Westwood, of Fredonia, for respondent.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Justice Court to recover of the defendants the sum of $44. The plaintiff based his right to recover upon the proposition that the defendants were sureties upon the bond of the school collector of district No. 5 of the town of Pomfret, of which the plaintiff was trustee, claiming that the school collector had failed to account for this amount of money. A trial was had, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff, upon which a judgment has been entered.

The defendants contend that there is no evidence in the case to sustain this recovery. To- establish his contention the plaintiff introduced in evidence his report as trustee of said district and a letter

p. 918

written by the collector of said school district. The letter states that the collector has a balance on hand of $28.08. The account of the trustee, as filed, shows a balance in favor of the district of $72.08. The trustee’s report seems to have been prepared in pursuance of section 276 of the Educational Law, and was filed with the town clerk of the town of Pomfret. Subdivision 2 of this section provides that the report shall contain:

“The amount of their drafts upon the supervisor, collector or treasurer for the payment of the teachers’ salaries during such year, and the amount of their drafts upon him for the purchase of books and school apparatus during such year, and the manner in which such moneys have been expended.”

Subdivision 6 provides that the report shall contain:

“The amount of money for teachers’ salaries, in addition to the public money paid therefor, the amount of taxes levied in said district for purchasing schoolhouse sites, for building, hiring, purchasing, repairing and insuring schoolhouses, for fuel, for school libraries, or for any other purpose allowed by law."

[1] These provisions of the Educational Law contemplate an exact and specific statement of the receipts and payments by the district, including the amounts of drafts upon the supervisor and collector respectively. The report as filed fails to give this information. It does'not appear from the report whether the moneys representing the balance of the district fund are in the hands of the supervisor or the collector. It was made to appear that there is no treasurer of this school district.

It does not appear that the school district availed itself of the provisions of section 253 of the Educational Law, which provides:

“1. The trustees of a school district which has not a treasurer may direct by resolution duly entered on the minutes of their proceedings the collector of such district to disburse to teachers the money apportioned by the state for teachers’ salaries.

“2. The collector shall thereupon execute a bond to the trustees, with two or more sureties, in double the amount of the last apportionment, with like condition of sureties, approval of trustees, and amount and like directions as to filing as are required in the preceding section for a bond for the collection of taxes, and conditioned also for the due and faithful execution of the duties of his office as such disbursing agent.”

Section 275, subds. 11 and 13, provide:

“It shall be the duty of the trustees of a school district, and they shall have power:

****#****_

“11. To pay towards the wages of legally qualified teachers the public moneys apportioned to the district for such purpose by giving them orders therefor on the supervisor, or on the collector or treasurer of such district when duly qualified to receive and disburse the same. * * *

“13. To draw upon the supervisor, the collector or treasurer, when duly qualified to receive and disburse the same, for the school moneys, by written order signed by the sole trustee, or where there are three trustees, signed by a majority of said trustees as prescribed by subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 360 of this chapter."

[2] It follows that the public moneys apportioned to district No. 5 of the town of Pomfret are not shown to have been paid to the col

p. 919

lector; consequently he was not accountable for the moneys retained by the supervisor of the town and disbursed by him upon order of the trustee.

[3] The trustee’s report does not disclose whether the balance set forth is in the hands of the supervisor of the town of Pomfret or the collector of school district No. 5; consequently the evidence in this case does not establish any liability upon the part of the defendants. Woodhull v. Bohenblost, 4 Hun, 399 .

Judgment reversed, and, the same being contrary to the evidence of the case, a new trial is directed before C. A. Putnam, justice of the peace of the town of Portland, N. Y., at his office in the village of Brocton, April 24, 1913, at 10 o’clock a. m.; costs of this appeal to appellant to abide event of new trial.