Bailey v. Tompkins

Schools and School Districts—Orders—Guaranty op School Oppicers. * Where an order purports upon Its face to be issued by a school district, and is signed by the school officers in the ordinary place for signatures, and at the left, in fine print, are the words, “Issued by authority of officers of- said district, and payment guaranteed,” and a space left underneath for the signatures of the guarantors, held: 1. That the purchaser took the order subject to the authority of the school district to issue. 2. That such school officers are not liable as guarantors.

Error to Newaygo; Palmer, J. Assumpsit by John Bailey against Isaac Tompkins and Mason Norton to recover the amount of a school order. From a judgment for defendants on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error. This is an action of assumpsit, brought in justice’s court.. The declaration was upon the common counts, and, as shown by the return of the justice, is as follows: “The plaintiff declared orally on the common counts, and avers that the school order filed in this cause was duly-assigned by the Educational Association to the plaintiff, John Bailey, for a valuable consideration.” The order reads: “ State op Michigan, $37.50 “ County of Newaygo. “Town of Norwich, Dist. 5, Oct. 21st, 1897. “Assessor of district 5, township of Norwich, Oct. .20,' 1898, will pay to the Educational Association, or bearer, the sum of thirty-seven and 50-100 dollars, out of any fund belonging to said district, for Complete Encyclopedia of Modern School Methods, illustrated, comprising reading, grammar, writing, arithmetic, business course, history, geographical, maps, and automatic case. “Issued by authority of officers of said district, and payment guaranteed by “ Isaac Tompkins. u Mason Norton.” Upon appeal the circuit court directed a verdict for the defendants. The order was obtained by two traveling • agents of the Educational Association, who, after obtaining the order, immediately transferred it to the plaintiff. Defendant Tompkins was the director of the district, and Norton the moderator. It was conceded upon the trial that the order was void as to the school district, and that the defendants had no authority to buy the books or issue the order, but plaintiff seeks to hold the defendants both as makers and as guarantors. Nothing was said to defendant Tompkins by the agents as to his personal liability. Defendant Norton raised some question as to his personal liability, and was informed by the agents that he was not liable. Both defendants informed these agents that they had no authority to buy the books. The agents pretended to read from the law, showing them that they had authority, and finally persuaded them to sign the order. Neither signed with any idea that he was personally responsible or was guaranteeing the payment of the order.