Case ID: nh_58/html/0423-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bingham, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

School-District v. Pillsbury & a.
    
    A school-district may sue in a name it has acquired by reputation.
    A school-district, organized under Laws of 1845, c. 221, s. 2, and legalized by Gen. St., c. 78, s. 3, could not, in February, 1876, be dissolved by one of the towns forming it.
    
      Debt, to recover school money, under Gen. St., c. 77, s. 6, in the name of Union School District No. 1 in Bow, and 23 in Concord.. The defendants were the mayor and aldermen of Concord, from March, 1875, to March, 1877. The plaintiff district was formed in 1850 of disti'ict No. 1 in Bow, and part of No. 18 in Concord, under Laws of 1845, c. 221, s. 2. The Concord record of the proceedings shows that the plaintiff was to be known as District No. 22 in Concord, until otherwise ordered by “ said town.” The record in Bow is the same, except the word towns is used instead of “ town.” The union district, after it was oi’ganized, acted, was recognized by both towns, and became known by reputation by the name in which it brings this suit. February 26, 1876, three citizens of the Concord part of the district petitioned that the union be dissolved, and the mayor and aldermen of Concord voted to dissolve it. After this the plaintiff district kept up its regular meetings, and continued its business as before the action of Concord. The defendants refused to pay the plaintiffs a part of their money for 1875, and all of it for 1876. Two questions were reserved: 1. Is the suit brought in the right name ? 2. Did the action of Concord dissolve the district ? •
    Heath, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Sanborn & Clark and Mugridge, for the defendants.
   Bingham, J.

However it might beheld as to the power of a corporation to change its name when it is fixed in its charter, it is clear that when a quasi-corporation like a school-district is organized under a general statute that does not require a name to be designated, it may acquire a name by reputation, and sue and be sued by it. Dillon on Municipal Corp., c. 8, s. 120; School District v. Blakeslee, 13 Conn. 227.

Gen. St., c. 78, s. 3, provide that all existing districts, however organized, shall continue to be such, subject to be altered or discontinued, according to existing laws. Concord and Bow, in February, 1876, could have restored the parts of which the district was made to their former position, by the action of the school committees and selectmen of both towns. Gen. St., c. 78, ss. 5, 6 ; Laws of 1868, c. 1, s. 24. The action of Concord alone was unauthorized, and the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.

Case discharged.

Foster and Allen, JJ., did not sit.