Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

STATE ex rel. MURPHY et al. v. BOARD OF ED., OKLAHOMA CITY, et al.

(Syllabus.)

1. Schools and School Districts — Members of Board of Education of Independent District in Good Faith Ordering Issuance of Warrants in Payment of Claims Against Appropriations Later Adjudged Illegal not Personally Liable to district. 2. Same — School Treasurer in Good Faith Paying Warrant Fair on Its Face and Duly Drawn on Appropriation Later Adjudged Illegal not Personally Liable to District.

185 Okla. 40092 P.2d 837

The act of a treasurer of an independent school district in paying a warrant fair on its face and duly drawn on an existing appropriation is purely ministerial and he is under no legal duty to examine into the legality of said appropriation, and in the absence of bad faith is not personally liable to the district merely because the appropriation is later declared illegal by the courts. (Following rule of Board of Education v. Cloudman, 185 Okla. 400, 92 P.2d 837.)

WELCH, V. C. J.

This appeal involves the expenditure of the same funds as was involved in the case of Board of Education of City of Oklahoma City, a Municipal Corporation, v. Dr. H.H. Cloudman and others, 185 Okla. 400, 92 P.2d 837, and in addition a similar expenditure for a portion of the fiscal year 1932-33, and is an action brought by taxpayers. The same propositions of law are involved herein as were considered in the Cloudman Case, supra, and 'the conclusions therein reached' are applicable and controlling here.

The author of this opinion dissented in the Cloudman Case, and still entertains the view that the rule in that case is not sound, but nevertheless recognizes that the rule of that case in its full extent must be regarded as binding on the court in this case, and for that reason it must be and is followed here.

The order of the trial court in sustaining the several demurrers to the petition and its judgment in favor of all of the defendants is therefore affirmed.

BAYLESS, C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, CORN, GIBSON, HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE EX REL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION
(Nov 7, 1939)