The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-02-04

SeaweH overruled the demurrer inter-
posed on behalf of the merchants in the
suit instituted by Elisha Brooks to pre-
vent the payment Of demands other
than those of the teachers. Although
thls is a victory for the teachers, the
peculiar law governing the case at bar
Will result in loss to them, as sala-
ries amounting to $123,5O0, owing for the
fiscal year 1898, which were paid out
OF the revenue of 1889, must be de-
Quoted from the moneys on hand before
the teachers can receive their salaries
for the months Of November and De-
cember. The payment Of salaries due
for one year from the revenues of the
next is, in Judge Seawell's opinion, IL
legal, and the teachers are thereby
losers to that extent.
Judge Seawell has made plain in his
opinion three points, heretofore unde-
cided, which will in future govern SIM
liar conditions that may arise. First.
the court holds that SO far as the bills
Of creditors Of the board, other than the
teachers, are concerned, the one
twelfth act applies and governs the
Board of Education. Second. that the
salaries of teachers are yearly salaries.
fixed by the Board of Education, and
they are therefore entitled to receive
such salaries during periods when the
schools are closed. Third, that the sal
aries of teachers accruing during one
fiscal year may not be paid out of the
revenues of the next.
The conditions from which the suit
emanated are fully set forth in the
opinion handed down with the order
overruling the merchants demurrer to
the teachers action. The opinion in
full is as follows:
This action is brought to restrain the
Superintendent of Schools of this CITY
and county from approving, the Auditor
from auditing and the Treasurer from
paying the demands of certain of the
defendants against the Board of Educa-
ton.
in detail all the allegations of the COM
plant. 1t appears that the plaintiff is a
taxpayer in said city and county and Is
also a teacher in the Girls High School
that the defendants other than Wells
Webster and Truman have presented to
the Auditor for approval and audit de-
mands against the school fund of said
city and county of San Francisco amount
ing in the aggregate to $50 900, which have
been finally approved by the Board of
Education and that all said demands
were contracted for and incurred subse-
quently to the 31st day of August, 1898,
ton had already contracted for and in
Cured demands payable out of the school
fund, during the months in which they
accrued, aggregatfng more than s102 $50
for each of said months. 1t is further
alleged that the sum of 81 ,232 GAO is the
entire amount of the income and revenue
provided for said Board Of Education for
the fiscal year 1889.
The question presented by the demurrer
is whether the act Of February 25 1878
Statutes 1877-1S78, p. LID applies to the
Board of Education for the city and coun-
ty of San Francisco.
Sections one and two of said act are as
follows:
"Section l. 1t shall not be lawful here
after for the Board of Supervisors of the
City and County of San Francisco or any
committee, officer or board having power
to authorize or contract liabilities against
the Treasury of said city and county to
authorize, allow, contract for, pay or rem
der payable in the present or future, in
any one month, any demand or demands
against said Treasury, or any of the funds
thereof, which shall, in the aggregate, ex-
coed one-twelfth part of the amount al
lowed by laws existing at the time of such
contract, authorization, allowance, pay
ment or liability, to be expended within
the fiscal year of which said month is a
part. If, at the beginning of any month
any money remains unexpended in any of
the funds set apart for maintaining the
municipal government Of the city and
county of San Francisco, and which
might lawfully have been expended the
preceding month, such unexpended sum