Case Name: M. W. ROBINSON v. J. A. HOWARD and another
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1881-01
Citations: 84 N.C. 151
Docket Number: 
Parties: M. W. ROBINSON v. J. A. HOWARD and another.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 151–153

Head Matter:
M. W. ROBINSON v. J. A. HOWARD and another.
-'School Committee — 'Public ■Officeris — Mandamus—Jurisdiction.
.A sehool committee agreed in writing to 'pay a teacher oí a free school the sum of thirty dollars per month, and the teacher brought an action in a justice’s court against the committee to recover the same^ Held, (1) .-School committeemen are public officers and not personally liable on • contracts made in the lino of their duty.; nor will this action lie .-against them in their corporate capacity.
$) In suctnease amiin.dam.us to compel\£he committee to give an order on the county treasurer for the sum» due for plaintiff rs service?,, is the' only remedy;- and of this,, a justice of the peace-has.no jurisdiction..
(Taylor v.. Sehoo-l Oom.,5 Jones,.98, cited1 and approved.),
Civil Action tried at Fall Term, 1880s of Lincoln Superior Court, before Seyjnour, Ji
The plaintiff'sued in. a justice's court upon- a. contract of which the folio-wing; is a copy r, “'We the undersigned committee-of Edward's district authorize M. W. Robinson, to-teach, the free public school in this- district, to commence on. Monday* July 15th, 1878, and continue until funds- are exhausted. Wag.es $80 per month.” (Dated July 2d, 1878, and signed by J. A. Ho-ward and J. H..H. McC'onnell, school committee). The plaintiff alleged that he had performed! the services and the committee had, refused- to pay him- the-wages agreed on.
From the justice^ court the- ease was. carried by appeal to. the superior-court, where judgment of nonsuit was entered,,, and the plaintiff appealed,.
Messrs. Bphe ¿¡¿ Hoke,, for- plain-tiff:
Mr. B. G. Gohb, for defendants^.

Opinion:
Ruffin, J.
If the plaintiff'seeks to- recover of the- parties whom, he styles,." school committee," in their individual capacity, then his action will not lie; for-being public officers and- contracting with the plaintiff'as such, they are not-personally responsible; it being the law, that public officers are not liable on any contract they may make within the-line o-f their duty. If he seeks to recover of the "-school committee" in its,corporate capacity, then he-has-mistaken his remedy.
The school committee- is not allowed-, by law, to have any of the school fund under its control. I.t could, not, if it would, pay the plaintiff out of the proper fund... Its duty consists in giving the teacher an order on. the county treasurer for the sum due for his services. And should the-plaintiff get a judgment against the " committee,"1 he would: be no nearer his money than now. His appropriate and only remedy is by means of mandamus, (Taylor v. School Committee, 5 Jones, 98) of which a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction.
No error. Affirmed.