ficulty. The only course, therefore, which is safe, under all circumstances, is the one pointed out by the law.

The Trustees of school district No. 6 in the town of Yates, ex parte.

Non-residents are taxable for lands used as pastures.

The facts of this case are stated in the Superintendent's opinion. By JOHN A. Dix, October 29, 1835. Mr. C. lives in the town of Ridgeway, and owns a farm there, pays taxes, &c, but owns a piece of land in the town of Yates, which he occupies for pasturing, ploughing, &c. separate and distinct from his farm. He has no house, servant or agent upon it, but whatever is done upon it he does himself. The question is; Has the school district in the town of Yates, in which said piece of land lies, a legal right to tax it for building a school-house?

Answer. There is no doubt about it. The owner may be taxed for so much of it as is cleared and cultivated; and the Superintendent has always held that a piece of cleared ground used for pasturing, was of that class of lands for which a non-resident owner may be taxed.

The Commissioners of Common Schools of the town of Alexander, ex parte.

When a school district is dissolved, the value of the school-house and other property ought to be distributed among the inhabitants according to their taxable property.

In this case a school district was annulled and set off to other districts, all of which were furnished with school-houses. The question submitted was, in what manner the school-house and appendages belonging to the district so annulled should be disposed of?

By JOHN A. DIx, October 29, 1835. No provision has been made by law for the case about to occur in your school district, But, where a district is dissolved by the commissioners of common schools and the inhabitants are set off to other districts, the proceeds of the property belonging to the former ought to be distributed among the inhabitants according to their taxable property. It is the taxable property of the district that has provided the school-house, &c. and the proceeds of the sale should revert to the source from which it was derived, All the taxable inhabitants would of course participate in the distribution in ratio of their respective possessions. It may seem unjust, at first glance that those who have moved into the district since the schoolhouse was built, should receive any portion of its value; but it

is possible that they may have paid an increased price for property in the district on account of the school privileges, and the rule will probably prove as equitable as any other that can be adopted. To all taxes levied for common school purposes in the districts, to which they are now set off, they will contribute in the ratio of their property, and for this reason also the rule of distribution seems reasonable. It is manifestly impracticable to seek out all who have contributed to the erection of the house, whether they remain in or have removed from the district, and restore to each his just quota of the value of the property.

(ANONYMOUS.)

If an annual meeting is regularly called and attended by only four persons who, without organizing, agree to meet again in a week, the second meeting is not valid.

If an annual meeting is regularly called and attended by four persons, who organize, and without transacting any other business adjourn for a week, the proceedings are valid and the annual election may be held at the adjourned meeting.

Schools must be kept in the district school-house, excepting in extraordinary

cases.

By JOHN A. Dix. October 30, 1835. A statement of the cases submitted to me is herewith annexed with my opinion.

1. At an annual meeting legally notified by the district clerk, four persons only attended. The clerk was absent, and the meeting was not regularly organized, no moderator being appointed. The four who were present agreed to hold the annual meeting in one week from that time. The taxable inhabitants, or a major part of them, met at the time agreed on, organized the meeting and elected their district officers, with the exception of a collector. The question submitted is, whether the last meeting was legal?

Answer. It was not. Nor was the annual meeting legal. The latter was not organized, nor were there any proceedings whatever which were authorized or which could be made a matter of record. The agreement of a few individuals, assembled without any form of organization, to hold a meeting at a subsequent time, could not give validity to it as an adjourned meeting; and as the latter was held in pursuance of that agreement, the proceedings were altogether void and without effect.

2. At an annual meeting legally notified by the district clerk, four persons only attended. The clerk was absent. The meeting was organized by appointing a moderator and a clerk pro tempore. No further business was done, but the meeting was adjourned for one week from that time without having the proceedings of the meeting recorded. A major part of the inhabitants met in pursuance of the adjournment and elected their district officers,

with the exception of a collector. The question submitted is, whether this meeting was legal?

Answer. Yes. The annual meeting being regularly called and organized, the persons present had a right to adjourn to another day. The inhabitants of a school district may exercise this right whenever they are lawfully assembled at any district meeting. The adjournment being legal, the second meeting held in pursuance of it, was also legal, so far as respects the right to hold it. District officers must be elected at the annual meeting, but the second meeting must be deemed a continuation of the annual meeting, an adjournment having been voted in consequence of the small number of persons present, in order to procure a fair expression of the wishes of the district. The omission on the part of the proper officer to put the proceedings of the first meeting on record does not affect the validity of those proceedings. It is a delinqueney for which the responsible persons are highly censurable; but their negligence cannot be allowed to prejudice the interests of the district.

3. Can a public school be supported in such a manner as to obtain the public money in any place, excepting the schoolhouse in said district, when a majority of the district vote for it?

Answer. This must depend on circumstances. A school cannot be kept in any other place than the district school-house, excepting for the most urgent reasons. Cases may occur in which it is not only proper, but necessary, to select another house temporarily; but they are certainly rare, and when they do occur, the place where the school is to be kept must be designated by vote of the inhabitants.

(ANONYMOUS.)

If a school district is altered, the site of the school-house may be changed, by a majority of votes, and without the consent of the commissioners of common schools.

1

By JOHN A. Dix, November 3, 1835. If, after a schoolhouse has been built or purchased, the district is altered, the site may be changed and the school-house removed by a majority of the voters present, and without the consent of the commissioners of common schools.

By reference to sub. 4, sec. 61, page 478, 1 R. S. you will observe that the power "to designate a site for the district schoolhouse" is unlimited, excepting by the first part of the section, which is applicable to all its subdivisions: and by subdivision 6, of the same section, the power "to repeal, alter and modify" proceedings is given.

The provisions of the act of Feb. 17, 1831, are restrictions on the exercise of these powers: but these provisions are all applica

ble to unaltered districts; and the 66th section of the revised statute relating to common schools having been repealed, there is no restriction as to fixing or changing the site of the district schoolhouse, in districts which have been altered. In such cases the consent of the commissioners is not necessary, nor is a vote of two-thirds required. In other words, the powers given by sec. 61, before referred to, may be exercised.

A. B. a teacher in school district No. -- in the town of New-Hartford, ex parte.

Trustees must settle all accounts arising out of contracts executed before the expiration of their term of office.

Trustees in office must sign a warrant, in order to give it validity.

In this case, a female teacher, employed in 1834, received part of her wages, and the balance remained unpaid, when the trustees, who contracted with her, went out of office. Her term of instruction ended before their term of office expired. There was no dispute as to the amount due her. The only questions were, who should make out the rate bills and sign the warrant.

By JOHN A. Dix, November 7, 1835. The Superintendent has always required trustees of school districts to attend to the settlement of all accounts arising out of contracts executed before the expiration of their term of office. Thus, if the term, for which the female teacher referred to in your letter was employed, expired before the trustees who contracted with her went out of office, they should have made out the rate bill for the collection of her wages, although the trustees in office at the time the rate bill was made out must have signed the warrant in order to give it validity. There has been gross negligence in postponing the collection of her dues to the present time: but I think the usual course proper in this case, notwithstanding the delay. The trustees in office when her term expired should make out a rate bill, including all the persons who sent children to school during that term and who have not paid their proportion of the amount due her for tuition. To this bill the trustees now in office must annex their warrant.

The Trustees of school district No. 1 in the town of Veteran, ex parte.

Persons removing from a district after a fax list is made out are liable for their portion of the tax.

In this case a tax list was made out, but before the tax could be collected, two of the persons included in the list removed from the district, and their places were supplied by two other persons who moved into the houses vacated by them. The

Superintendent was desired to state whether the persons so removing were liable for the amount due, and if so, how the collection was to be enforced against them.

By JOHN A. DIX, November 13, 1835. The persons, who have removed from your district since the tax list for building a school-house was made out, are liable for their portion of the tax. They were taxable inhabitants residing in the district at the time the tax list was made out, and if they refuse to pay, and the collector cannot find goods and chattels in their possession, the trustees may prosecute them for the amount due. The suits must be brought by the trustees in their name of office. See sec. 89 of the statute relating to common schools. There is no other mode of enforcing the collection of the tax against the persons referred to. The individuals, who have moved into the houses vacated by them, are not liable for the amount due from them. A warrant issued by the trustees of a school district is a lien only upon the goods and chattels belonging to or in possession of the persons included in the tax list, and does not bind those who succeed such persons in the occupation of their houses or farms.

The Inspectors of Common Schools of the town of Madison, ex parte.

Three inspectors must sign a certificate of qualification.

A separate examination of a teacher by three inspectors apart from each is not a compliance with the law,

This was an application for the opinion of the Superintendent in a case in which three inspectors had examined a teacher separate and apart from each other, and had given him a certificate of qualification. He was also desired to state whether two inspectors had authority to examine a teacher and grant a certificate.

By JOHN A. Dix, November 16, 1835. The signatures of three of the inspectors of common schools are indispensable to give validity to a certificate of qualification for a teacher. Before such a certificate can be given, three inspectors must examine him. For this purpose they must meet together. All these formalities have been held to be essential to the validity of a certificate. I do not recollect that a case similar to the one referred to in your letter has been presented to me; but it is quite clear that an examination of a teacher by three inspectors apart from each other, or at a meeting attended by two inspectors only, is not a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the law.