Barry v. Goad

California Supreme Court May 26, 1891 No. No. 12984Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The board of education lacks the statutory authority to employ 'inspecting teachers' to perform duties that are legally assigned to the superintendent or the board itself, and it cannot use the school fund to pay for such unauthorized positions.

Issues

Whether the board of education has the statutory authority to employ 'inspecting teachers' to perform duties otherwise assigned to the superintendent or the board.
Whether a taxpayer has standing to restrain the board of education from making unauthorized payments from the school fund.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The board of education is, however, in the exercise of a public trust, limited by the act under which it was created, and with only such powers as the legislature has seen fit to confer.”

“The character of the appointees must be determined from the functions which they are to discharge, and not from the name by which they are called.”

“It needs no argument to show that the board cannot transfer to its own appointees the duties that the statute has devolved upon another officer”

Synopsis

School Fund — Power of Board of Education. — The board of education of the city and county of San Francisco is a creature of the legislature, and lias only such powers as have been conferred on it, and has no authority to divert the moneys of the school fund to any purposes other than such as have been expressly authorized by law.

Id. — Unauthorized Employment — Inspecting Teachers. — The power of the board of education of the city and county of San Francisco to employ “ teachers ” for the public schools confers upon them no authority to employ “inspecting teachers,” whose duties, under the resolution appointing them, in no respect pertain to instruction, but are simply those which would pertain to a superintendent or director of the several schools to which their attention is directed.

Id. — Rights of Tax-payer — Injunctions — Restraining Illegal Drafts. — A resident and tax-payer may maintain an action to restrain the hoard of education of the city and county of San Francisco from drawing drafts for compensation for services rendered and to be rendered under an appointment from the board which is unauthorized by law.

Harrison, J. —The plaintiff, a resident and tax-payer of the city and county of San Francisco, brought this action for the purpose of restraining the board of education of said city and county from drawing any draft upon the school fund in favor of the defendant vnnedy and Fowler in compensation for services rendered and to be rendered under an appointment from said board, upon the ground that such appointment was unauthorized by law. In their answer to the complaint the defendants set forth the order under which they allege [218]that the said Kennedy and Fowler were employed, in which is specified in detail the duties required of them. Upon the trial of the cause the court made the following findings of fact: “ 1. That the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are not sufficient in law to entitle plaintiff to any relief or any judgment; 2. That all the affirmative allegations in defendants’ answer are true”; and thereupon rendered judgment in favor of the defendants.

The board of education of the city and county of San Francisco is a creature of the legislature, and has only such powers as have been conferred upon it. It has no authority to divert the moneys of the schqol fund to any purposes other than such as have been expressly authorized by law. By the act of April 1, 1872 (Stats. 1872, p. 846), defining the powers and duties of the board, it is declared: —

“ Sec. 1. The board of education of the city and county of San Francisco shall have power: .... 3. To employ and dismiss teachers, janitors, and school-census marshals, and to fix, alter, allow, and order paid their salaries or compensation.”

The board is also authorized “to employ and pay such mechanics and laborers as may be necessary to carry into effect the powers and duties of the board,” and “to employ and pay counsel” for the purpose of prosecuting and defending actions relating to the property of the school department. (Stats. 1864, p. 162.)

Section 15 of the act of April 27, 1863 (Stats. 1863, p. 605), declares that the school fund of the city and county of San Francisco “shall be kept separate and distinct from all other moneys, and shall only be used for school purposes under the provisions of this act”; and section 16 of the same act declares: “ The said school fund shall be used and applied by said board of education for the following purposes, to wit: 1. For the payment of the salaries or wages of teachers, janitors, school-census marshals, and other persons who may be employed

Barry v. Goad

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief