Enos v. Hulett

13 Barb. 111, 1852 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 91
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 3, 1852·Published

Opinion

By the Court, Willard, P. J.

There was no evidence giving the defendants jurisdiction of the plaintiff, or authorizing them to impose a tax, or to issue their warrant. It does not appear that the plaintiff sent children to the school, or that he resided, or had property in the district during the period in which the tax accrued. It was admitted, however, by the plaintiff’s counsel, that the tax list and warrant, relied on by the defendants, were regular on their face, and that if the trustees were authorized to levy the tax, without a vote of the district, the tax list and warrant would protect them. The warrant was dated 6th April, 1850, and signed by all the defendants as trustees, and to it was annexed a list of taxes against fifty-eight individuals, described as taxable inhabitants of the district, amounting in the aggregate to $115,85. The plaintiff is taxed $4,22 in that list. It was proved that the items composing the tax list were made up as follows : $10 for wood and cleaning school house ; $7,17 remaining uncollected in a rate bill for a previous term, and which had been assessed to individuals whom [113] the defendants, in April, 1850, decided should be exempted from the tax; and the remainder was for teacher’s wages which accrued between October 1, 1849, and April 1, 1850. The trustees did not call a meeting to act on the above items, or either of them, but made the estimates themselves. And the only question which fairly arises in the case is, whether the trustees were authorized to levy this tax, without a vote of the district..

I. At the time the warrant and tax list were made out, the act entitled “ An act establishing free schools throughout the state,” passed March 26,1859, was in operation, and had been since the month of November, 1849. (Laws of 1849, p. 192, § 61.) The 8th section of that law repealed all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of the act. It therefore repealed the power to collect by rate bill, given by the act of December, 1847, (Laws of 1847, § 82,) and it substituted a new mode of raising the necessary funds for carrying on schools. The third section provides that the trustees of school districts shall prepare an estimate of the amount of money necessary to be raised in the district for the ensuing year, for the payment of the debts and expenses to be incurred by said district for fuel, furniture, school apparatus, repairs and insurance of school house, teacher’s wages and contingent expenses, exclusive of the public money, &c. &c. and shall cause printed or written notices thereof to be posted for two weeks previous to said meeting, upon the school house door and in three or more of the most public places in said district. The trustees are required to present that estimate to such meeting, and the legal voters of such district, shall vote thereon for each item separately, and so much of said estimate as shall be approved by a majority of such voters present, shall be levied and raised by tax on said district, in the same manner as other district taxes are now by law levied and collected. The 5th section provides that the district meeting may adjourn from time to time if the trustees have omitted to make the estimate and post the notices required by law; and the 6th section enacts that if the district neglects to raise by tax the required sum, it shall be the duty of the trustees to repair the school house, purchase the necessary fuel, and employ a teacher for four months, [114] and the expenses shall be levied and collected in the manner provided by the third section. The defendants did not pursue any of the steps pointed out by the act, but laid the tax themselves, without giving the district an opportunity to vote upon the question. The defendants insist that the free school act, so called, is conformable to the constitution. This, however, is controverted by the plaintiff. But if the act be constitutional, the defendants showed no right to levy the tax, and consequently the judgment against them was right.

On its face the tax list seems to have been made out under the act of 1849, (the free school act.) It is a tax list, and not a rate bill. The answer sets up that they, the defendants,laid a tax for teacher’s wages for the term commencing in November, 1849, according to the last assessment roll of the town, on which they issued their warrant, &c. The proof is, that the tax list was for $10 for wood and cleaning house, and $7,17, the balance of an uncollected rate bill of a previous quarter, which the trustees assessed upon the subsequent quarter, having just exempted the persons so charged, and the balance was teacher’s wages from October, 1849, to April, 1850. The proof does not support this answer; and the answer, if true, does not state facts enough to constitute a defense.

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

Enos v. Hulett, 13 Barb. 111, 1852 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 91 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1852).

13 Barb. 111 (Enos v. Hulett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ackerman v. Vail
4 Denio 297 (New York Supreme Court, 1847)
Robinson v. Dodge
18 Johns. 351 (New York Supreme Court, 1820)