Prairie School Township vs. Wm. Haseleu, et al.
Opinion filed July 6th, 1893.
School Township Treasurer—Cannot Sell Bonds.
Chapters 44, 45, Sess. Laws Dak. T. 1883, relating to school townships and school house bonds, considered. Held, that the school board (consisting of the treasurer, clerk, and director) is the official governing board of such school township, and such board has full power and authority to issue, negotiate, and sell such bonds of the school township as have been duly voted by the electors for the purpose of building a school house. Held, further, that the school township treasurer, acting independently, has no authority under the law and by virtue of his office as treasurer, to issue, negotiate, or sell such bonds.
School Board Responsible for Lost Funds.
‘Where the school board of the plaintiff, consisting of the treasurer, clerk, and director, issued certain school house bonds, which had been regularly voted by the electors, and in doing so delivered such bonds toa bank to be negotiated and sold for the benefit of the school township, and the bonds were sold and put in circulation, but the proceeds were never turned over to the school township, but, on the contrary, were lost to the school township, he/d, that the schoo! board was wholly responsible’ for such loss. Held, further, that such bonds not having been delivered to the treasurer for negotiation and sale, and he never having sold or attempted to sell the same, an action will not lie against the treasurer or his suretics on his official bond for a breach of the condition of such bond which requires the treasurer to account for and pay over ull moneys and property which shall come into his hands as treasurer.
Obligation of Surety Not Enlarged by Construction.
The obligations of sureties upon official bonds are measured by the language of the bond, and where the condition of a bond embodies the provisions of the statute, and no more, the obligation cannot be expanded by construction beyond the fair import of the language in which the sureties have consented to be bound.
Parol Evidence to Vary Terms of Receipt.
When the bonds were delivered by the board at the bank for negotiation and sale, all members of the board were at the bank, and acting in concert. At that time the cashier of the bank delivered to the treasurer a writing as follows: “$1,000, Grand Rapids, Dakota, Sept. 28th, 1883. Received of William Haseleu, Treas. Prairie School Township, one thousand dollars in bonds of Prairie Tp., LaMoure Co., D. T., for placing and cr. A. H. Huelster, Cashier Bank of Grand Rapids.” Held, that such writing embodied both a receipt and a contract, and that, as such, its terms could be varied and explained by parol evidence, but only as to that part which is a mere receipt.
