« AnteriorContinuar »
If the teacher adds to his other qualifications, a knowledge of the art of singing, it will be an additional recommendation to him with those who desire to have a good school. Singing in school serves as a recreation and amusement, especially for the smaller scholars. It exercises and strengthens their voices and lungs, and by its influence on the disposition and morals, enables a teacher to govern bis school with comparative ease.
The committee should exercise a sound discretion in the examina. tion. If a person has been before examined by them, and the committee have often visited his school, and know bim to be a good teacher, the law allows them to give him a certificate founded on this experience. But re-examinations can in no case do any injury, and by gradually increasing their rigor and adding to the requirements, much may be done towards raising the general standard of education. The committee should, for convenience of reference, keep a tabular list of the names of all persoos examined by them, either on their common record book, or in a book kept for that pur. pose, with columns for the date, age, place of residence of the ap. plicant, the result of the examination, and any other remarks that may appear worthy of remembrance.---Rhode Island Reg.
RATE BILL AND WARRANT.
The following decision has been published while the foregoing part of this document has been passing through the press, and is taken from MANNING'S MICHIGAN REPORTS, VOL. 1, Page 269:
Wall vs. Eastman: Where the moderator of a school district refused to sign a warrant to a rate bill for teacher's wages, and a judgment was afterwards recovered by the teacher against the district for the amount due him, which was paid by a tax on the district, a tax payer who was assessed, and paid his part of the tax, cannot sustain an action against the moderator to recover what he has paid.
Case reserved from Jackson Circuit Court. Eastman sued Wall in a Justice's Court, in an action on the case, to recover eight dollars tax which he, as a resident of a school district, had been compelled to pay, by reason of Wall's refusal, as moderator of the district, to sign a warrant to the rate bill for teacher's wages. The substance of the declaration which was demurred to, is stated in the opinion of the Court. The Justice rendered judgment for Eastman. Wall appealed to the county court, which also gave judgment against him, when he carried the case to the circuit court by certiorari.
By the Court: GREEN, J.—The question reserved in this case is, whether the declaration contains a cause of action, in favor of the plaintiff below, against the defendant below. The declaration sets forth in substance, that in February, 1847, Wall, the defendant below, was director of a school district in Sandstone, Jackson county; that a teacher was hired, who taught the school in that district, and made out a rate bill for wages due him, and requested Wall to issue his warrant as director, for the collection thereof, which Wall refused to do; and that thereupon, the teacher sued the district, and recovered a judgment for the wages so due him—the amount of which judg. mert was levied upon the taxable property within the district, and collected--that the plaintiff below was a resident of the district, and owned taxable property therein, and that by reason of the premises he was compelled to pay a portion of said judgment, to wit: the sum of eight dollars thereof, which sum he claims to recover of the defendant below. To this declaration the defendant below demurred, and assigned several special cases of demurrer, all of which, howerer, embrace but one proposition in substance, namely, that the dec. laration does not contain a cause of action.
The counsel for the plaintiff below, referred to 5th John. R. 175, and 15 id. 250, and these are the only adjudged cases cited on either side. The question involved in the case in 5 John. R. referred to, was whether the imposition of a penalty for official misconduct, or neglect of duty, took away the right of action for damages. The law relating to primary schools and the duties and liabilities of school district officers in force when the cause of action in this case, if any arose, was the act of 1843, Session Laws 1843, page 88. By the 71st section of that act a penalty of ten dollars was imposed upon every person, who, having been elected to the office of moderator, director or assessor of a school district, and having entered upon the duties of his office, should neglect or refuse to perform any duty required of him by virtue of his office. Section 77 provides that in all cases not otherwise provided for in that act, in which a duty shall be enjoined upon any person, officer, or board of officers, such person, officer, or board, as the case may be, shall be liable to any party aggrieved, in the full amount of all damages sustained by the wilful neglect, or unfaithful performanee of such duty. This last provision introduces no new principle, but is in affirmance of the common law, and seems to have been incorporated into the statute by the Legislature, for the purpose of precluding any conclusion to the contrary, which might otherwise be supposed to arise from other provisions of the statute.
By the second subdivision of section 21 of the act before referred to, it is made the duty of the director, by and with the advice and consent of the moderator or assessor, to contract with and hire qualified teachers for the district: which contract is required to be in writing, and to specify the wages per week or month, as agreed by the parties. To this contract the district, in its corporate capacity, is a necessary party, and in that capacity it is bound to perform it; and in case of a failure to do so, is liable in damages to the teacher for its non-performance. The district in its corporate capacity receives the moneys apportioned to it from the primary school fund, or derived from other sources for the payment of teachers; and if more is required for that purpose, it is to be collected from those sending children to the school, in proportion to the number of scholars, and the time they attend. For this purpose the teacher is to note the daily attendance of each scholar, and make return of the same to the direetor. The director is then to ascertain the amount due from each person sending children to school, and to make out a rate bill, and annex thereto a warrant for the collection thereof, to be signed by him and the moderator. This warrant is to be directed to the district assessor, who is required to collect all rate bills of the district made and delivered to him, in accordance with the seventh subdivis. ion of section 21, of the act aforeraid, in obedience to the command of the warrants annexed to such rate bills, and to make a written return of the same to the director. When such moneys have been collected by the assessor, they are school moneys belonging to the district, and the assessor and his sureties are liable therefor, if not applied by him according to law, upon the bond which he is required to give to the district; and they are to be drawn by an order of the moderator upon the assessor, as moneys to be disbursed by the dis, trict, according to section 19 of the act aforesaid. If the moneys so required to be collected had been lost to the district by reason of the defaloation of the assessor, after they came into his hands, there can be no question but that the district, in its corporate capacity, might have recorered the amount in an action upon the assessor's bond; and it is equally clear that the members of the corporation could not in such a case, have sustained actions in their individual names, for their respestive portions of the loss. The converse of the last proposition would be a most palpable violation of that wise maxim, which declares that the law abhors a multiplicity of actions, and which forbids an individual to bring separate actions upon different items of the same account.
How does the case before us differ in principle from the one just supposed of a loss sustained by the defalcation of the assessor? In that case, the loss would fall upon the district in the first instance, in its corporate capacity, and indirectly upon the owners of taxable property within the district. And so in this case. By reason of the refusal of the defendant below to issue his warrant for the collection of the rate bill, the district lost the amount which should have been collected from the individuals sending pupils to the district school for the payment of the teacher; and was obliged to collect by a tax upon the property within the district, the amount required—in consequence of which, the plaintiff below, being an inhabitant of the district, owning taxable property therein, was compelled to pay a tax of eight dollars, for the recovery of which, this suit was brought. If any right of action accrued, it was in favor of the corporation of which the plaintiff below was a member, and not to him individually. If the plaintiff below could sustain this action, every person who paid any portion of the judgment in favor of the teacher against the district, might also sustain a separate action for the amount paid by him; and upon the same principle, in case of the default of the county treasurer, every individual in the county who should be compelled to pay a tax to make good the fund lost, might also maintain a separate action against the treasurer for the amount paid by him. No such principle, it is believed, has ever been sanctioned or recognized by any judicial tribunal whose decisions have been reported in the books. The result to which the foregoing conclusions lead does not deprive the plaintiff below of a full and adequate remedy for the
injury be complains of. If the defendant below has made himself fiable by the omission of official duty, charged in the declaration in this case, a recovery against him by the district will not only make the plaintiff below good, but all the members of the district who suffered a like injury from the same cause. As the injury to the plaintiff below was indirect, and sustained by him in common with the other members of the corporation, as such, so must be his remedy