Adams v. State

82 Ill. 132
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 Ill. 132 (Adams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. State, 82 Ill. 132 (Ill. 1876).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Under the 47th section of the School Law, R. S. 1874, p. 962, school directors, when authorized by a vote of the people of the district, have power to borrow money for certain enumerated purposes, and issue bonds to secure the same, in sums of not less than $100, bearing interest at a rate not exceeding ten per cent per annum; nor shall the sum borrowed in any one year exceed five per cent of the taxable property of the district, including previous indebtedness, to be ascertained by the last assessment for State and county' taxes previous to incurring such indebtedness. This is all the authority given directors in the matter of borrowing money, and it would appear to be a limitation upon their action in issuing bonds, to sums of money actually received. Ho authority' is given to issue bonds and place them upon the market to be sold for what they might bring, or for anything less than their par value. Without an enabling statute, it is apprehended they can not thus issue'-and sell bonds, and should the directors make such disposition of them, they would clearly be liable, under the 77th section of the statute, for any loss the fund of the district might sustain.

The duties of school directors are derived exclusively from the statute, are specifically defined, and if they' exercise pow-r, ers and functions not conferred upon them, the statute has made them responsible for all losses that may ensue. They may borrow money' for enumerated purposes, on terms prescribed, and when obtained, it is their duty to pay' it over to the treasurer, who is the only proper custodian. Should they place it in the hands of any one else, it is at their own risk.

Under this view of the law, the pleas constituted no defense to the action. The demurrer was therefore properly sustained, and the judgment will he affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

100 Lake v. Novak
2012 IL App (2d) 110708 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2012)
Bohn v. Stubblefield
238 Ill. App. 453 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1925)
State Ex Rel. Weddle v. Board of County School Commissioners
51 A. 289 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 Ill. 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-state-ill-1876.