Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1917-04-17
SCHOOL DISTRICT "a
LOSES IT'S SUIT OVER
HIGH SCHOOL TUITION
Cost of Buildings Not Part Of
Expense--Nine Other
Opinions

~ smith, county school superintendent
to pay to the Salem school district n
sum of money which the directors of
the school district believed to be in
eluded in the "cost of edueationv of
the pupils of outside districts where
there ere no high schools. This sum
is $500 as interest on $4,000. bor-
rowed to construct the high school
building.
Smith and Shields appeared in be-
half of the petitioner and Max Gehlhar.
district attorney, and j. G. Heltzel,
deputy district attorney, for the de-
fendant. The writ was dismissed bv
Chief Justice Mcbride and the de.
murrer of the defendant to the petition
sustained.
The present decision is based on an
amended writ, which alleged the school
district was compelled to borrow $70,-
600 of the $4,000 used to construct
the high school building and that dur
ing the year 1916 the district paid out
the sum of $500 as interest and that
the defendant superintendent refused
to allow that sum as part of the amount
"expended by the high school for main
tanning high school" during the year.
This was the sole issue at this time.
Up to webster.
Chief Justice Mcbride saws that the
words maintain, maintenance and
maintaining" have such varied mean
ings in the statutes that no mere lexi-
Geographical definition will fit. He says
the meaning is to be derived from the
whole statute in order to ascertain the
elisive ''intent.'
In the original opinion the word
expended" meant "paid out, dis
bursed," and was intended to refer to
moneys expended for maintaining a
school. Authority for maintaining does
not necessarily imply authority to con-
struct. Maintain, according to Wor-
cester's Dictionary, means "to keep
up, to preserve, to keep from change !"
Webster defines it as "To hold, to
keep in any particular state or condi-
ton, to keep up"
From these definitions, the court
goes on to say, it would seem that the
cost of constructing a school building
could hardly be construed as part of
the expense of maintaining school in
a building already constructed. The
statute does not require any district to
erect high school to accommodate the
pupils of any other district. 1t was
probably not in the legislative mind
that the high school districts provided
with buildings would increase their
capacity or employ an extra force of
instructors to accommodate the pupils
of other districts; nor is it likely that
the petitioner has employed an addi-
tional teacher or incurred a dollar of
additional expense in excess of what
it would have expended, unless for sup
plies. Not every dollar paid out dur
ing the year on account of the con-
struction of high schol may be said
to be part of the expense of maintain
ing the school.
Cost District Nothing.
"It seems to be assumed" the court
stated, "by the petitioner that the
$4,000 Indebtedness incurred in the
construction Of a building is in the
nature of lien against the building
and that school cannot be held unless
the interest is kept up, and for this
reason is in a way a maintenance
charge. Such is not the case.
eff the district should default in
the payment of the interest, there is no
law whereby the building could be
taken. 1t is not the purpose of high
school districts to make a profit on
their less fortunate neighbors
"The intention was to permit the
district having high school buildings
to enter outside pupils and to receive
from the educational fund of the eoun-
ty the actual cost of educating them
and nothing more"
This "actual cost of educating in
cludes the salaries of teacher and
caretakers, supplies, lights, telephones,
water, insurance, repairs, etc. 1t does
not include money paid for the con-
struction or interest.
The demurrer therefore will be sus-
tanned and the writ dismissed.
Nine other opinions were handed
down at this time. They are as fol-
lows:
Edward Reimers, ct al, appellants,
VS.. T. F. Brennan, ct al, appealed from
Multnomah; action to recover dam
ages for alleged fraudulent representa-
tions in exchange of real property;
opinion by Justice Bean; Circuit Judge
Davis affirmed.
E. C. Boardman, ct al, VS.. Insurance
Company Of the State of Pennsylvania,
appellant; appeal from Multnomah;
suit to correct alleged mistake in an
insurance policy opinion by Justice
Burnett; Circuit Judge Davis, re-
versed.
W. a. Hinderliter VS.. w. L. Me
Donald, appellant; appealed from Jose,
phine; involving agreement for sale OF
mining property; opinion by Justice
Burnett; Circuit Judge Calkins, re-
versed.
In re. estate of James Ryan, de-
ceased, appeal from Multnomah; opin-
ion by Justice Burnett; former Circuit
Judge MeGinn, reversed.
D. V. Meagher, appellant, VS.. Eilers
Music House; appealed from Multi
nomah: action to recover part of de-
posit given by lessee as security for
rent: opinion by Justice Harris; Circuit
Judge Gantenbein affirmed.
T. Rosenwald, appellant vs.. Oregon
City Transportation company; ap-
pealed from Marion; action to recover
damages; opinion by Justice Benson;
indoment Of Circuit Judge Kelly,