New England towns. It possesses only such functions and powers, and is subject to such liabilities only, as are provided by statute.18 It is not governed by town meeting, but by a board of supervisors or trustees and the officers chosen at annual election. It is not so old as the county, but is organized within it under the government survey made generally by the federal government previous to its settlement. In the general plan of survey of the public lands of the United States a township is a division of territory six miles square, containing thirty-six sections, of which section sixteen is devoted to the public schools.19 Generally in the Western states the government survey is the basis of the state organization of a township; but in some of the states, as in Tennessee, there are no quasi corporations of this name, although a considerable portion of the territory was surveyed by the general government in township form. The duties of the township officers are prescribed by general statute, and sometimes they are expected and required to perform county and even state functions. The statutes creating, organizing, and regulating townships in the various states are not identical; but they are so nearly alike as to give general uniformity to this agency of government in all the states where it exists.

Township Bonds.

Many cases have been before the Supreme Court of the United States, involving the validity of township bonds issued under the statutes of different states empowering townships to subscribe in aid of the construction of railroads and other public improvements, in which the powers, functions, and fiscal

18 Town of Bloomfield v. Bank, 121 U. S. 121, 7 Sup. Ct. 865, 30 L. Ed. 923; Hooper v. Emery, 14 Me. 375; Vail v. Amenia, 4 N. D. 239, 59 N. W. 1092. See, also, Doolittle v. Walpole, 67 N. H. 554, 38 Atl. 19; Shoe v. Township of Nether Providence, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 137, 39 Wkly. Notes Cas. 437; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Klein, 52 Neb. 258, 71 N. W. 1069; Mueller v. Town of Cavour, 107 Wis. 599, 83 N. W. 944.

19 Rev. St. U. S. § 2395 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1471].

management of these quasi corporations received careful examination at the hands of this great tribunal. The general result of these decisions has been to place townships, in the matter of their contracts and liabilities, upon substantially the same footing with counties; and to hold that township bonds, as to the power and regularity of issuance, the authority of officers, the effect of recitals in the bond, and the duty of the purchaser to take notice of constitutional and statutory provisions, are controlled by the same general principles of law as those applicable to county bonds, as hereinbefore explained. 20

SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

31. School districts are the most numerous and universal of all the local subdivisions of the state made for public purposes, and belong to the lowest of the quasi corporations in the scale of organization.

Nearly every town, township, and civil district in the United States is subdivided into school districts, which are created and organized for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the free public school system of the state. Their powers and functions are generally uniform in each state, but not in the several states.21 In nearly all the states provisions are made

20 Ante, § 24, and notes; HARSHMAN v. BATES CO., 92 U. S. 569, 23 L. Ed. 747; Cass Co. v. Johnston, 95 U. S. 360, 24 L. Ed. 416; Pompton Tp. v. Cooper Union, 101 U. S. 196, 25 L. Ed. 803; Menasha v. Hazard, 102 U. S. 81, 26 L. Ed. 83; TOWN OF OREGON V. JENNINGS, 119 U. S. 74, 7 Sup. Ct. 124, 30 L. Ed. 323; Barnum v. Okolona, 148 U. S. 393, 13 Sup. Ct. 638, 37 L. Ed. 495; Folsom v. Ninety-Six, 159 U. S. 611, 16 Sup. Ct. 174, 40 L. Ed. 278; Kreger v. Township of Bismarck, 59 Minn. 3, 60 N. W. 675; Robinson v. Fowler, 80 Hun, 101, 30 N. Y. Supp. 25; Rathbone v. Hopper, 57 Kan. 240, 45 Pac. 610, 34 L. R. A. 674.

21 In the Dakotas the school district is expressly constituted a body corporate by the provisions of the statutes. In Michigan and Arkansas the courts declare the school district a body corporate, with power to seek relief in equity. School Dist. No. 3 v. School Dist., 63 Mich. 51, 29 N. W. 489; School Dist. No. 3 v. Bodenhamer, 43

for different kinds of school districts, applicable to urban and rural population, and the peculiar method of operation of these quasi corporations depends upon the school statutes enacted in the several states. Generally the organization consists of a board of commissioners or school trustees for each district, chosen by the people, and invested with the power of selecting the teachers for the school or schools of the district, fixing the salary, auditing the teachers' claims therefor, and giving the warrant upon the school fund for paying the same. They are also the custodians of the schoolhouses and other school property of the district, and empowered by law to erect new school buildings when necessary, and to purchase school supplies for their district. The boundaries. of the school district are fixed in some states by the legislature, in others by the county government, and yet in others by the town or township government, as the Constitution may provide. The school funds are kept in some states in the County treasury, in others in the town or township treasury, and in others by the treasurer of the school district.

Existence Management.

It has been held that the existence of a school district may be proved by prescription.22 All that is necessary in such a case is to show that the district has long been in existence,

Ark. 140. In Kansas it is declared to be a quasi corporation, and this the current opinion. Beach v. Leahy, 11 Kan. 23. And to the same effect are People v. School Trustees, 78 Ill. 136; Littlewort V. Davis, 50 Miss. 403; School Dist. No. 7 v. Thompson, 5 Minn. 280 (Gil. 221); School Dist. No. 3 v. Mocloon, 4 Wis. 79; Wharton v. School Directors, 42 Pa. 358; Rapelye v. Van Sickler, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 175. See Holmes & Bull Furniture Co. v. Hedges, 13 Wash, 696, 43 Pac. 944.

22 Halfway River School Dist. v. Bradley, 54 Conn. 74, 5 Atl. 861; Sherwin v. Bugbee, 16 Vt. 439; Bassett v. Porter, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 487; Bow v. Allenstown, 34 N. H. 351, 69 Am. Dec. 489; Robie V. Sedgwick, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 319.

As to power of school district to issue bonds, see Holliday v. Hilderbrandt, 97 Iowa, 177, 66 N. W. 89; Hamilton v. San Diego Co.,

They

and has been publicly known and recognized as such." have no powers derived from usage, but only the powers expressly granted to organizations of this class, and such implied powers as are necessary to enable them to perform their functions. They may also be given corporate character and status by implication.25 In determining the question whether the school district, or its officers, possess a particular power under statute, the courts lean towards a strict construction of the law; 26 but, where the power is obviously conferred, such liberal interpretation is given as will further the end in view.27

108 Cal. 273, 41 Pac. 305; Applegate v. Board, 58 N. J. Law, 347, 33 Atl. 923. Also, Jamison v. School Dist. (C. C.) 90 Fed. 387.

On the subject of organization of school districts, see State v. Duerr, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 303; Board of Sup'rs of Bedford Co. v. High School, 92 Va. 292, 23 S. E. 299; School Dist. No. 4 v. Smith, 90 Mo. App. 215.

23 HARRIS v. SCHOOL DIST., 28 N. H. 58; Conklin v. School Dist., 22 Kan. 521.

24 Wilson v. School Dist., 32 N. H. 118; Beach v. Leahy, 11 Kan. 30; Scales v. Chattahoochee Co., 41 Ga. 225; Rogers v. People, 68 Ill. 154.

Where a statute requires that a contract be in writing, a school district cannot be made liable on an implied contract for the value of services of a janitor in sweeping a district schoolhouse and keeping fires therein. Taylor v. School Dist., 1 Mo. App. Rep'r, 98, 60 Mo. App. 372.

251 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 43; Inhabitants of Fourth School Dist. v. Wood, 13 Mass. 193.

26 Rogers v. People, 68 Ill. 154; HARRIS v. SCHOOL DIST., 28 N. H. 58; Beach v. Leahy, 11 Kan. 30; Scales v. Chattahoochee County, 41 Ga. 225; Black v. Cornell, 30 Mo. App. 641; Weitz v. Independent Dist., 79 Iowa, 423, 44 N. W. 696; Parr v. Greenbush, 72 N. Y. 463; Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank v. School Dist., 6 Dak. 255, 42 N. W. 767.

27 Sanborn v. School Dist., 12 Minn. 17 (Gil. 1); Hazen v. Lerche, 47 Mich. 626, 11 N. W. 413; White v. School Dist. (Pa.) 8 Atl. 443; School Dist. v. Bennett, 52 Ark. 511, 13 S. W. 132; State v. Tiedemann, 69 Mo. 515; McCortle v. Bates, 29 Ohio St. 419, 23 Am. Rep. 758; Sullivan v. School Dist., 39 Kan. 347, 18 Pac. 287.

See Singleton v. Austin, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 88, 65 S. W. 686; Kraft

School districts must, however, perform their functions in the manner pointed out by law; and so, where the statute requires a written contract, an oral contract cannot be proven.28 Nor is a teacher's contract valid for a greater time than that authorized by statute.20 In regard to contracts for school supplies, the same general rule prevails as in other corporations. If the directors transgress the limit of their authority in making such a contract, the contract is invalid, and cannot be enforced over the objection of the district.30 But if supplies or teacher's services have been received and used. for the benefit of the school, an action of assumpsit will lie

V. Board, 67 N. J. Law, 512, 51 Atl. 483; Stevens v. Campbell, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 63 S. W. 161.

28 Dickinson v. Poughkeepsie, 75 N. Y. 65; Weitz v. Independent Dist., 79 Iowa, 423, 44 N. W. 696; Capital Bank v. School Dist., 1 N. D. 479, 48 N. W. 363; School Town of Milford v. Powner, 126 Ind. 528, 26 N. E. 484; Cleveland v. Amy, 88 Mich. 374, 50 N. W. 293; Roseboom v. School Tp., 122 Ind. 377, 23 N. E. 796; Black v. Cornell, 30 Mo. App. 641.

A statute provided that contracts with school districts should be in writing. An oral contract with a teacher to conduct the school for a month after the expiration of his written contract was held to be unenforceable, though such teacher had performed the services. Hutchins v. School Dist., 128 Mich. 177, 87 N. W. 80.

Under a statute providing that no city, school township, or school district shall make any contract unless it is in writing and subscribed by the parties, all contracts for the employment of teachers in public schools must be so executed. Wetmore v. Board, 86 Mo. App. 362; Faulk v. McCartney, 42 Kan. 695, 22 Pac. 712.

29 White v. School Dist. (Pa.) 8 Atl. 443; School Com'rs of Washington Co. v. Wagaman, 84 Md. 151, 35 Atl. 85; Doss v. Wiley, 72 Miss. 179, 16 South. 902; Hill v. Swinney, 72 Miss. 248, 16 South. 497.

But see, contra, School Town of Milford v. Zeigler, 1 Ind. App. 138, 27 N. E. 303.

30 Middleton v. Greeson, 106 Ind. 18, 5 N. E. 755; School Dist. v. Bennett, 52 Ark. 511, 13 S. W. 132; Barry v. Goad, 89 Cal. 215, 26 Pac. 785; School Dist. No. 18 v. Brown, 2 Kan. App. 309, 43 Pac. 102; State v. Freed, 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 294, 3 Ohio Dec. 314.