Minnesota Supreme Court, 1886

Martin v. Elwood

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 25, 1886 · Mitchell

35 Minn. 309; 29 N.W. 135; 1886 Minn. LEXIS 129 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Hammons é Hammons, for appellant., John G. Woolley, for respondents.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1903, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Brown v. Fitcher (Minn. 1903)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Mitchell, J.

The material facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the proper school-district officers drew and delivered to plaintiff two orders on the treasurer of the school-district for the amount due her as teacher of the district school; that she duly presented them to the treasurer of the district, and demanded payment, but that he refused payment, and refused to indorse thereon that the same were not paid for want of funds. No question is made as to the validity or regularity of the orders. The sole point made against the complaint is that inasmuch as it is not stated that payment was refused -for want of funds, no cause of action against the school-district is alleged ; that plaintiff’s only remedy is by mandamus against the treasurer. As respects the character of the school-district’s liability to plaintiff, and plaintiff’s right to enforce payment of the same, we see no difference between this debt and that which any private individual *310might owe. The defendant owed plaintiff this debt, which it was bound to pay upon due presentation of the orders, and demand of payment.' When this demand was made, and payment refused, there is no reason why plaintiff might not proceed to enforce collection of her claim by suit. Guilder v. Town of Otsego, 20 Minn. 59, (74;) Terry v. City of Milwaukee, 15 Wis. 490. Even if a writ of mandamus might lie against the treasurer to compel him to pay the orders, this would not prevent plaintiff from maintaining an action against the school-district. State v. Ames, 31 Minn. 440, (18 N. W. Rep. 277.) Therefore it seems to us wholly immaterial whether there were or were not funds in the treasury with which to pay the orders.

Order reversed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.