The Anaconda standard., 1899-11-08
CAN RECOVER JUDGMENT
Mr.. Gormley Explains His School
Certificate Plan.
REPLYING TO CRITICISM
Trustees Can Bind the District by the
Contract Into Which They
a. Enter-No Ground for
fFs--,- 4.- Fear

Great Falls, Nov. 1.-The criticism in
Sundays Standard of County Attorney
/, Duffy of Deer Lodge county on the
opinion expressed by County Attorney
a. G. Gormley of this city regarding
proposed way out of the present school
muddle has been the subject of consid-
cradle discussion among the school pat
rons in this city. A Standard reporter
called upon Mr.. Gorm1ey to-day and in
g answer to inquiry in the matter, MIR.
Gormley said:
\, Yes, ! read the itnerview in the
Standard with County Attorney Duffy
Of Deer Lodge county with reference 10
the plan proposed for running the
schools. and in which he makes some
criticism on the opinion I gave our
school board in approval of that plan.
It. seems to me that Mr.. Duffy misap
prehends the purpose of the certificates
2 to be issued to the teachers. The right
to sue the district and recover Judgment
would not depend on these certificates
tall. The teacher or his assignee
would sue the district on account for
services rendered under contract, and
would unquestionably be entitled to
Judgment in such case without any cer-
only object of the certificate would he
a to satisfy the banker or. person buying
the claim that the teachers account
was all right, SO that it could not after
wards be disputed by the board The
decision in the 18th Montana, which, by
the way, was first cited by County At
torney PoindeXter of Beaverhead county
was not given as authority for issuing
the certificates as Mr.. Duffy states in
his interview, but as authority for the
county commissioners making special
levy against the property of school
district in order to satisfy a judgment
against it. Mr.. Duffy virtually comedies
that judgment could be obtained
against the district, for he says, IF the
teachers have contracts for the full
term they probably anesue the distric It
and recover Judgment The word
probably had better be eliminated, for
there can be no question as to the right
of a teacher or his assignee to recover
judgment for money due under the
terms of employment. The fact that
there was no money on hand when the
contract was made, OF even when the
judgment was rendered, would be no
defense in the suit, for the contract
is one the trustees are clearly author
ized to bind the district for, under our
statutes, and the courts of other states
have decided Of decision is necessary on
this proposition) that a lack of funds
is no defense. If a judgment means
anything at all, it means that it is an
obligation against the district which
must be paid, as other obligations. out
of any moneys in the treasury to the
districts credit. Where no money is
on hand when the judgment is render
ed then, under the decision in the 18th
Montana, the county commissioners
could be mandamused to make a spec
ial levy against the property of the
district to pay the same. There is GER
tainly no ground for the fear expressed
by Mr. Duffy that under this plan a
corrupt school board could bind the dis
trict even beyond its assessed valua-
tion, for, under section 6 of article 10
the constitution school district can
not become indebted in the aggregate
exceeding per cent of it's taxable prop
erty, and, besides, as l have tried to
point out, the issuance of these certifi-
Gates is not an attempt to create new
Indebtedness, but is simply the evi..
dence of an Indebtedness already Great
ed by the district, and for which the
district is already bound i.