Case Name: RIGGS v. POLK COUNTY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1908-04-14
Citations: 51 Or. 509
Docket Number: 
Parties: RIGGS v. POLK COUNTY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 509–519

Head Matter:
Argued February 26,
decided April 14, 1908.
RIGGS v. POLK COUNTY.
[95 Pac. 5.]
Corporations — Members — Meetings — Calling Meetings — Persons Making Call.
1. It is in general essential to the validity of acts done at a special or called meeting of a corporation, that the call shall be made by the persons appointed by the governing statute to call such meetings, and notice must be given at the time and in the manner prescribed.
Schools and School Districts—Public Schools—District Boards— Meetings—Persons Giving Notice.
2. Section 8885, B. & O. Oomp., vesting in school district meeting the power to levy taxes, expressly limits such power to “district meetings, legally called”; Section 8389, subd. 1, empowers the district school board to call meetings generally; and subdivision 14 empowers it to call meetings to consider the question of erecting school buildings. Section 8380 provides, that all regular and special school meetings must be convened by a call stating the
• objects of such meeting, signed by the chairman of the board and the district cleric, or a majority of the district school board. Held, that Section 3380 was intended to designate the persons who should give notice of a called meeting ordered by the board, and not merely to give the officers therein named a discretionary power to call a meeting, and the existence of the same power in some other body was necessarily excluded.
Statutes—Construction—Belated Clauses.
8. To ascertain the intention of a statute, it must be construed in connection with all other provisions of the act of which it forms a part.
Schools and School Districts—Public Schools—Meetings—Persons Giving Notice—"Chairman of the Board.”
4. Section 3880, B. & C. Comp., provides, that all regular and special school meetings must be convened by a written call stating the objects of such meetings) signed by the chairman of the district board and district clerk, or a majority of the school board. Section 8388 provides, that the director who has served the longest time shall act as chairman of the board meetings, and. in the absence of the chairman, th,e other members of the board in the order of their seniority may act as chairman. The statute does not expressly create the office of “chairman of the school board,” but such office was impliedly recognized by Section 3389, subd. 16, providing that school warrants must be drawn and signed by the chairman of the board, and subdivision 21 permitting the board to authorize the chairman to draw warrants for the payment of salaries, and subdivision 31 providing that all bonds issued shall be signed by the chairman of the board of directors, and Section 3409 providing that meetings of the board may be convened by written notice issued on the order of the chairman. Held, that the various sections of the statute construed together recognized the permanent and separate existence of the office of “chairman of the board,” and by Section 3388 the oldest in service of the directors was chairman of the board, and hence a special meeting called under Section 3380 signed by the next oldest member of the board was not signed by “the chairman of the board,” as required thereby, and bonds issued at such a meeting were invalid.
Same—District Debts—Bonds —Remedies of Taxpayer—Participation in Meeting—Estopped to Object—Pdeading.
5. In a suit to enjoin the issue of bonds to build a district school building, on the ground that the meeting of the district board authorizing the issue of the bonds was not legally convened, even if plaintiff had knowledge of the meeting and participated therein, and was thereby estopped to question the validity of the proceedings in equity, such facts would be a matter of defense by way of estoppel.
From Polk: William Galloway, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Commissioner Slater.
Plaintiff, who is a resident of and owns property in school district No. 45 of Polk County, instituted this suit to enjoin the collection of a school tax attempted to be levied by that district. It is alleged, in substance, that at the time of the issuance of the call for the holding of the meeting at which the tax was levied, A. M. Holmes, Finley M. Edgar, and Mason K. Crowley were the duly elected and qualified directors of the district; that of the' three, Holmes had served the longest time under an election. Edgar was next in seniority of service, and Crowley was the junior director; that on December 3, 1904, Edgar attempted to convene a special school meeting of the district to be held at the school-house at the hour of 10 o'clock in the forenoon of December 17, 1904, by a written notice, which is pleaded haec verba. It is signed by Edgar as chairman pro tem. of the board of directors, and by the clerk of the district, and sets forth the objfect and purpose of the meeting to be the levying of a tax for building a school-house in said district. It is further alleged that at the time of the issuance of the notice, Holmes was chairman of the board of directors, and that said notice was not signed by the chairman of the board of directors, nor by a majority of such board; that in pursuance of such notice a meeting was held at the time and place therein stated, which attempted to levy a tax of seven mills on the dollar upon the real and personal property in the district; that the amount of tax levied upon plaintiff’s property was $82.28, which became delinquent, and, in pursuance of a warrant issued to the defendant by the county court, he is about to sell plaintiff’s property for the collection thereof.
A general demurrer to the complaint having been overruled, defendants answered, admitting the averments of the complaint, excepting that part which sets forth the form and manner of the issuance of the notice or call for the meeting, and that the notice was not signed by the chairman of the board. These were denied, and in substance it is affirmatively alleged, that on December 3, 1904, a meeting of the board of directors of the district was duly called and held at the school-house for the purpose of authorizing the issuance and directing the posting of a notice for a school meeting of the district for the object above stated; that directors, Edgar and Crowley and the clerk were present at the meeting, but that director Holmes did not attend; that at such board meeting it was determined to call a special school meeting to be held at the school-house on December 17, 1904, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon, for the purpose of levying a tax to build a school-house; and the clerk was ordered to post notices to that effect, as required by law; that in pursuance thereof the clerk did post notices, a form of which is set out in full. It is identical with the notice set forth in the complaint, excepting that after the sima'-vi" thereto of Finley M. Edgar there is added these words. “Chairman pro tem., Chairman Board of Directors,” which slightly differs from the alleged signature to the notice set forth in the complaint, but the signature of the clerk is the same.
A general demurrer to the answer having been overruled, plaintiff declined to plead further, and thereupon a decree was entered dismissing the complaint and dissolving the temporary injunction theretofore issued, from which decree plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
For appellant there was a brief with oral arguments by Mr. Oscar Hayter and Mr. William H. Holmes.
For respondent there was a brief with oral arguments by Mr. John H. McNary, District Attorney, and Mr. Joseph E. Sibley, Deputy District Attorney.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Commissioner Slater.