The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-15
THE POWER OF TRUSTEES.
Some Legal Opinions as to the Effect Of
Their Acts on Townships.

Some Legal Opinions as to the Effect of
Their Acts on Townships.
81 do not object to being interviewed" said
William Watson Wooden, ex-county attorney, to
the reporter, 'but have not taken time to look
over this township trustee question, and a legal
opinion given in haste might subject the per son
interviewed to ridicue. would want at least a
day to 60 over the matter and consult authori-
ties. remember that during my term as at
torney for the Board of County Commissioners
we became pretty we'll convinced in our dealings
with the trustees of this county, and particular
ly with Ernest Kitz, that the board was help
less.
when we had the convention of the county
commissioners of the State held here
with view to taking hold of county
and township matters, the commissioners
all agreed then that legislation was seriously
needed to protect the tax payers in the manage
| ment of township affairs. They were unanimous
in the belief that commissioners were virtually
without power and could not take care of the
interests of the people, the trustees being abso
lutte autocrats"
All over Indiana the statutes are being
thumbed, the Supreme Court decisions scanned
and opinions of leading attorneys asked
for information as to the validity of township
notes or orders and the liability of the township
for obligations contracted by the trustee A lit
tie light on the subject will be found in the legal
extracts which follow:
Eighty-third Indiana page 131, case Of Pine
Civil Township versus Huber Manufacturing
Company. The syllabus says: "Ihe obligation
for property bought for the use of a township,
and received by it, may be given By the trustee.
township trustee, or other agent of public,
is not personally bound by the contracts made
by him. Persons contracting with civil cor
poraton are bound to know the law limiting the
power Of its agents to contract The complaint
IN an action upon townships obligation need
not anticipate negative. Exceptions contained
in sections 6006 and 60O7, r. s., 1881 The an
swer of Indebtedness iii excess of funds, and
failure to first procure order from board of
commissioners. as required by sections 6006 and
6O07, r. S., 1881. contains a good defense to an
action upon an obligation of a township"
Fifty ninth Indiana, page 520 Wingate VS..
Harrison School Township, Clay county: The
syllabus says: IA civil township is not liable for
expense incurred in the improvement of school
buildings. The contract by the school trustee
for the improvement Of school property, by the
terms of which he is to share in the profits, is
void both at common law and under the statute.
[Citation to Revised Statutes 1876 page asa
And an answer to an action against the school
was accepted by trustee in pursuance of such
contract, is sufficient"
There is criminal statute in Revised Stat
utes 1881, Section 2049, to which the attention
of all interested is directed "Any township or
town trustee who shall during the
term he may occupy such Office y be in
terested, directly indirectly, in any
contract for the construction of any
school-house bridge, public building. or work
of any kind erected or built for the use of the
township or town in which he exercises his
official jurisdictions or who shall bargain for or
receive any percentage, drawback, premium,
profits, or money whatever on any contract
for the letting of any contract making any
appointment wherein the township town is
concerned, upon conviction thereof
shall be fined not more than S. 600 nor less than
$500 and Imprisonment in the State prison not
more than fourteen years nor less than two
years. and disfranchsed and rendered incapable
of holding any Office of trust and profit tor any
determinate period"
In the matter of the validity of the notes of
township trustees, payable in bank, an opinion
of the late Judge S. E. Perkins, Of the Supreme
Court, 1877 is cited. h said: I'm the case of
Sheffield School Township vs. Address, Sc Indi-
ana, l57 a trustee could make note payable in
bank out of special fund that would bind the
township but an assignee would take it subject
to all defenses" This case has been often cited
and followed. In 1883 Judge Howk said, in Axt
vs.. jackson School Township, 80 Indiana, 1O4:
IA person dealing with a trustee must take no
tlce OF his fduclary capacity, and that he could
only bind the township when authorized by law"
In 1884 Judge Elliott, in Reeve School Township
VS.. Dodson. SO Indiana. 497, goes further and
says: ''The authority to execute promissory
notes is confined to cases where the debt, which
the note evidences is for legitimate school pur-
poses" In 1885, January 81 in an opinion not
yet reported, Judge Elliott says at is MT in the
power of a trustee, by checks, notes or other
instruments, to bind the school corporations
| unless the claim for which they were given
ctod net hn ! hat ua,,1
of the trustee could not bind the township"
Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of
Indiana are of interest. One is entitled Reeve
School Township, of Daviess county, VS.. John
L. DoGson filed Nov. "a, 1884. Elliott j. ''The
trustee of school township is special agent,
with very limited authority. which is purely
statutory so far as concerns the financial affairs
of the school corporation, and all who deal with
him are charged with notice of the scope of his
authority. He has no authority to borrow
money or incur indebtedness, except for school
purposes, and then only in the cases contem-
plated by statute. He has no general authority
to execute promssory notes. His authority in
this respect is a special one, and can only be
exercised in conformity with the statute creating
the corporation, and it is confined to cases where
the debt evidenced by the note is for legitimate
school purposes In this case the complaint
does not show that the articles for which the
note was given were received by the school cor
poration. The corporationis only liable on an
implied contract. and not on such note; and so it
must be shown that it received the consideration.
A recital in the note that the articles were pur-
chased for the benefit of the corporation does
not raise an implied promise"
The other case is entitled: Union School
Township of Montgomery County, Indiana VS..
the First National Bank Elliott. j. 1.-The acts
of a school trustee create binding obligation
against the school township only when he does
the acts which the law authorizes, and does them
in the manner which it prescrbes All who deal
with him are bound to take notice of the scope
of his authority. 1t is not in the power of a
trustee by checks notes or other instruments to
bind the school corporation, unless the claim for
which they were given existed against the town
ship. Even the fraud of the trustees could not
bind the township. Allen. 109 10 Allen, 52S;
II Allen, 487; Gray, 2s7; 100 Mass, 2l4"