State ex rel. Humphries v. Thompson
State ex rel. Humphries v. Thompson
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a proceeding by mandamus, instituted in the Cooper county circuit court, to compel defendant, treasurer of said county, to pay a warrant drawn upon him by the president and clerk of school district number two, township 48, range 15, in
The allegations of the return were denied by replication and on the trial of the cause a peremptory writ was awarded against the defendant.
The cause was submitted to the court below on an agreed statement of facts substantially as follows : “For the purposes of this proceeding it is admitted that said warrant was drawn by the legally constituted authorities of said school district upon respondent as county treasurer and treasurer of the school funds of said district; that the relator was the teacher of a colored school in said district, and that the warrant in question was given him for services as teacher of said colored school; that at the time of the presentation of said warrant for payment he did not have, nor has he now, any money in the treasury raised by the township of which said district is a part, for the support of colored schools, but that the same has been exhausted, nor any money set apart for the support of colored schools of said district, but that he has now and did have money belonging to the teachers’ fund and raised by taxation on said district.”
. The question then submitted to the court is, whether the law creates a separate fund for the support of colored schools, upon which all warrants fof the payment of teachers of colored schools shall be drawn, or whether warrants for the payment of teachers of white and colored schools in the samé district shall be drawn upon “the teachers’ fund” of said district. Section 85 of the acts of 1874, pages 166-7, provides that the State superintendent shall annually apportion the public school fund applied for the
Under the operation of the above sections all the money applicable to the maintenance of public schools is distributed, and the amounts due from the various county treasurers to the respective school districts in each county of the State ascertained. These amounts, thus ascertained and credited by the county treasurers to the respective districts of their respective counties, can only be disbursed upon warrants drawn by the district clerk, upon the order of the board of directors, for services as teacher, for material purchased for the use of the school, or material or labor in the erection of a school house. All warrants for wages of teacher must be drawn on the teachers’ fund.
The teachers of colored schools are employed by the directors of the district and the compensation to be paid them become's a debt of the district, and to it alone can such teachers look for payment, and the board of directors could only order for that purpose the district clerk to draw a warrant on the teachers’ fund in the hands of the treasurer applicable to the payment of teachers in the district. This fund is made up of the income of State, county, and township funds (which under the terms of the law can only be applied to the payment of teachers), and the tax imposed for that purpose whether it be district or township tax.
If the warrant in question had been drawn on the “ colored teachers’ fund” as is contended by counsel it should have been, the county treasurer might well have hesitated to pay it, on the ground that the law recognized no such fund.
The intention of the legislature to require these funds to be kept separate it is said, may be derived from the language employed in section 90, viz : “that all monies arising from taxation shall be paid out only for the purposes for which they were levied.” Section sixty-five provides that the directors may levy a tax, first, for building purposes ; second, a tax for all other purposes. We think a proper construction of section ninety is that it simply intended to provide that the money raised by taxation for building purposes could only be applied to that purpose, and that the money raised by taxation for other purposes than building could not be paid out for building purposes.
If the legislature had intended the funds for the support of colored schools to be kept as a separate and distinct fund it would have been an easy matter for them to have said so and made proper provisions to have accomplished the end. It has not been so expressed in the law, either in terms nor by necessary intendment.
The judgment is affirmed,
Reference
- Full Case Name
- State ex rel. Robert Humphries v. James Thompson
- Status
- Published