The question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff had forfeited his rights as a citizen, to be present at the exhibition, to which all the citizens had been invited, and to which he had purchased a passport.

"If he came there to disturb the peace or interrupt the exercises; if he had made previous threats that he would do so, or demonstrations of such intention after entry, he might properly be put out. But in the absence of any such conduct, or evidence of such intention, he had the same right to come there that any other peaceable citizen had. Of this he could not be deprived at the pleasure or caprice of the professor who presided over the destinies of the school. The Potter Literary Society, by permission, had the use of the premises that night, and it had publicly invited all to pay and come. He had so done. His ticket gave him and his lady a passport to the hall, which no one had a right to dispute so long as his conduct was unexceptionable.

"No physical injury was inflicted. The plaintiff was forcibly ejected from the hall, in the presence of a large assembly. The injury consists in the insult and indignity inflicted upon his sensibilities and his honor, and the violation of his personal rights. The plaintiff does not ask high or exemplary damages, but should receive something by way of compensation for the injury he has suffered. This suit is brought rather to settle a disputed question and vindicate his rights, than as a pecuniary speculation." 16

16. Hughes vs. Goodell, 3 Pitts. R. 264, 1870.

298.

299.

Directors have no authority to pay a pupil's board............................
School orders or warrants are not negotiable........

115

115

297. Directors and controllers shall pay all necessary expenses of the schools by drafts on the district treasurer, signed by the president, and attested by the secretary of the board, the same being entered on the minutes.'

Directors have no authority to pay pupil's board.

298. The payment of the board of a pupil by school directors from public funds is unauthorized by law and illegal and will be restrained by injunction.2

School orders or warrants are not negotiable.

299. Orders drawn by a president of a board of school directors on the treasurer of a school district, under the school law, are not negotiable bills or orders, but mere warrants for the payment of money to the person to whom they are issued, to be disbursed by the treasurer under the authority of the law: they, therefore, do not authorize a subsequent holder to maintain suit in his own name, as upon a promissory note or order. They do not possess the ordinary properties of a mere contract, but are a statutory means of drawing the public money out of the hands of the legal custodian of the funds of the district.

First National Bank of Northumberland vs. Rush School District, 81 Pa. 307, 1876.3

School boards not authorized to purchase drafts or commercial papers.

300. Justice Paxton said: "The act of assembly authorizing them to borrow money and issue bonds therefor on the credit of the district would hardly authorize them to purchase drafts or commercial paper and issue the bonds of the school district in payment therefor. It would be an extremely dangerous doctrine to hold that municipal officers authorized by an act of assembly to borrow money upon the credit of the municipality, could issue the bonds of such municipality for anything but money."4

School directors personally liable.

On

301. In this case Robert Linn was a member of the board of school directors, and also treasurer of the school district. Samuel M. Kenyon, who had charge of the Savannah school house, or school house No. 9, was discharged as teacher by resolution of the board the 28th of February, 1857. It appears that after his discharge as a teacher by the school board, he continued to teach at the same place at the instance of those who had sent their children to this school, and with the understanding, that if he was not paid by the school directors, those who sent their children to the school would pay for their tuition. On the 25th of April, 1857, there was a resolution introduced to pay Kenyon for tuition after he had been discharged, which was lost by a tie vote. the 29th of August, 1857, there was a resolution offered to reinstate the Savannah school house where Kenyon had taught, which was again lost by a tie vote. Again, on the 26th of March, 1858, another resolution was introduced to pay Kenyon, which was again lost by a tie vote. school board of 1857 appear to have been equally divided on the question of paying Kenyon, and it appears to have been frequently agitated and brought to the notice of the board, and resulted in an equal division, until after the spring election of 1858, when the subject was again brought before the board of directors, and on the 5th of June, 1858, a resolution was passed to reinstate Samuel M. Kenyon as a

4. Muncy Borough School District vs. Com., 84 Pa. 469, 1877.

The

teacher in the Dickinson district, and to pay him his salary for teaching at the Savannah school house for five months. This resolution was carried by a vote of 3 to 2, Mr. Linn voting in the affirmative. On the same day, as appears from the minutes of the board, an order on the treasurer was drawn in favor of Kenyon for $125.00, in due form, signed by the president and attested by the secretary. This order, thus drawn under the circumstances we have stated, the township alleges was illegal, and ought not to have been paid by the treasurer of the school board; that the township auditors erred in passing this order to the credit of the treasurer, and this appeal from their settlement has been entered to correct this alleged error.

Chief Justice Lowrie said:

"Undoubtedly this teacher

had no right to be paid out of the public funds, except for the time he was in the public employment; and the directors had no legal authority to pay him; otherwise, they did it to their own wrong, and each director who voted for it is personally liable to the township. They had no right thus to deal with trust funds. They are in no proper sense legislators; but officers under the law, and obliged to obey it. Even a majority of the voters of the township could invest them with no authority to set aside the law of their office.

Then, as to the defendant, the treasurer: is he liable for paying the order, as for a mispayment? As director he voted for the misapplication of the money, and as treasurer he paid it; and he is now called upon, as treasurer, to account for it. Can he, as treasurer, shield himself behind himself as director? Can he, as treasurer, take advantage of his own wrongful act, as director, to save himself from liability? May he excuse an unlawful application of public funds, by showing a warrant which he himself unlawfully assisted in issuing? We are very clear that he cannot. Certainly it is true, that he must pay the warrants of the directors, and is not answerable for their errors. Yet, it is also true that when he, as treasurer, becomes subordinate to himself as director, he can have no moral or legal right to protection as subordinate, by pleading his own lawful act as

superior. When the same man is both superior and subordinate, the maxim respondent superior' furnishes no protection to the subordinate. A treasurer cannot claim credit for payment of a warrant illegally issued, if he himself aided in its issue. School directors cannot make law, and have none of the immunities of supreme legislators. Like other trustees, they are answerable for ordinary care and good faith in the performance of their duties.5

Liable for unlawful settlement with tax collectors.

302. If school directors make an unlawful settlement with a tax collector, the directors will, themselves, be liable personally to the district for the loss. The settlement with tax collectors must be submitted to the auditors annually for approval.

5. The Township of Dickinson vs. Linn, 36 Pa. 431, 1860.