The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-05-10

balahcc IN favor OF district ..,....,.., bI2 ~
There arc three items OF this calcula, m which
are disrutcd
ta) No allowance Is made for generations and
commissions. estimated at 400.
(b) The Gibbons lots. 81 900. These are lots
THAT are discarded by the school hoard, but
have market value OF $1,000 or more. Null
hcrin Judge. in their contract for the building
OF the school house, agree to take the lots as
part payment of $1,000, unless the school board
disposcs of them in some other way
(c) The Barker contract of 5000. This is one
Of the contracts awarded April 8, with the 9TH
crs. although there seems to be no written agree.
ncnt in regard to it. The subject OF the contract
is the removal of a school house building to an
other lot.
II these three items are taken out of the de-
fcndants calculation. the balance against the
school district on the two per cent. limitation
will be about $1,000. The plaintiffs figures differ
from the defendants only to the extent of lcav.
ing out the three items mentioned.
NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
Third-As we view the matter there can be no
question as to the Barker contract and the COM
missions and generations. The awarding OF such
a contract on April 6. 1901, added $500 to tho
indebtedness Of the district. and there is Just as
much reason for leaving this contract out of the
calculation as there would he in ignoring any one
OF the other larger contracts awarded on the
same day. Neither can there be any doubt as
to the commissions and generations They
must always be taken into consideration in
estimating the amount of money to be realized
from a tax duplicate. The item OF the Gibbons
lots may not be so clear on first impression.
This item may reduce the Muhcrn & Judge
Lumber company contract from $l3,500 to $l2,.
500, and it may not.
While the contractors are bound to take the
lots at $1,000, the option is left to the school
board to let the: go at that price, or they
may Use them for some other purpose and not
sell them at all. The incoming board may have
different views on the matter. The value of such
an item as an asset is too problematcal to be
considered by us now. BY eliminating these
items from our calculation it will be readily
seen that the lcb Of the school district has been
increased al $1,000 beyond the two per cen.
tum limito IN. 1t is not necessary to give fur
ther figures in detail to explain this concu.
sion. Defendants claim that the margin is so
small and insignificant that the right of the
plaintiffs to an injunction is at best doubtful.
on their own showing but we hold that once
1t is clearly shown a school district has in.
creased its indebtedness beyond the constitu-
tional Limitation an injunction must be allowed.
Whether the excuse is a hundred, or Il thousand
dollars, or more, makes no difference.
If there were no other matters in this case than
those disclosed by the facts as far as we have
discussed them it would be our duty to grant
preliminary injunction prayed for: but,
we are confronted with two questions, the de-
termination of which have an important bearing
in this case
Fourth-One of the questions which the de.
PENDANTS claim is conclusive against the plain.
tiifs is the right of the school board in about
two months from this time and after the organ
ization of the board, to levy tax for
building purposes not to exceed thirteen mills
This is kind of potential asset which We can.
not consider now Whether the school board
will levy one mill or thirteen mill building
tax, or whether they will levy any, are matters
entirely beyond our knowledge 1t is possible
that il the board. when the proper time comes.
fails to provide building fund to meet the
Indebtedness OF the district they may he com.
PEELED by mandamus to levy tan SO as to pay
a debt which they had authority to create; but
II the creation OF the debt itself was without
authority in law. we know of no method 10
enforce the collection OF it, The authorities
cited by counsel: Commonwealth vs. Allegheny,
81 Pa, 2U; Commonwealth VS.. Pittsbnrg :I4
Pa. t06. and Others along the same line do no |
decide that the collection OF an illegal debt |
may be commanded by mandanus or in any |
other way II the increase OF Indebtedness caused
by the awarding of contracts on April 6, 1901, |
was unconstitutional then, it is unconstitutional |
now, and no levy made by the incoming school |
board can cure it. And the contractors cannot |
complain, because the law is that all persons |
contracting with a municipal corporation must, |
at their peril, inquire into the power of the |
corporation, or its officers to make the contract
and a contract beyond the scope of the corporate
power is void.