warrant should be renewed, or whether a new tax-list should be made out, applied to the Superintendent for his direction.

By A. C. FLAGG, November 23, 1828. Trustees of school districts for the time being may renew a warrant for the collection of a tax, whether issued by themselves or their predecessors, and without a vote of the district meeting; but a renewal must be for the same sum, and against the same individuals. The vote of Nov. 15th would authorize the trustees to levy the same as a new tax on the present inhabitants of the district. It is a new tax and must be made out against the present taxable inhabitants of the district in the same manner as any other tax. These opinions are based upon the presumption that the district meeting had a right to vote this tax. The powers of district meetings are defined in section 61 of the Revised Statutes, relating to common schools. The meeting should vote a specified sum for a specified object, and for such objects only as are embraced and authorized by subdivision 5 of the above section. A vote for a sum to "defray necessary expenses at the discretion of the trustees," is altogether too loose and vague a proceeding in matters relating to the assessment of taxes, particularly where the statute has defined the objects for which a district meeting may vote taxes.*

The Trustees of school district No. 2 in the town of Brighton, ex parte.

A bell is not a necessary appendage to a school-house, and cannot be provided by a tax.

The inhabitants of school district No. 2 in the town of Brighton procured, with the consent and approbation of the trustees, a bell for the district school-house. It was originally designed to raise by subscription the amount required to cover the expense; but at the ensuing annual meeting it was unanimously resolved that a sum sufficient to pay for the bell and make some necessary repairs on the school-house should be raised on the taxable property of the district. The cost of the bell was $21.50, and an additional sum of $8.50 was voted for repairs, amounting in the aggregate to $30. In consequence of the refusal of some

*The Supreme Court, in the case of Robinson vs. Dodge and others, deci ded that the inhabitants of a school district had no right to delegate to the trustees any discretionary power as to the aggregate amount of the tax to be collected. The court said, they (the trustees) "are required to make a rate-bill or tax-bill to raise the sum voted for, which implies a vote for a definite sum.”

The act of 1814, under which the decision of the court was pronounced, differs somewhat from the Revised Statutes in the language of the provision relating to the imposition and collection of taxes for school district purposes, but not so much so as to require a different rule of construction.

of the inhabitants who were not present at the annual meeting, to pay their proportion of the tax, the trustees of the district applied to the Superintendent for his direction.

By A. C. FLAGG, November 25, 1828. The statute relating to common schools authorizes the district meeting to vote a tax to build a school-house and to furnish the same with ". necessa ry fuel and appendages," and the question is whether a bell is a necessary appendage to a common school-house. It is not usual to furnish district school-houses with bells; it may be convenient in your particular case to have one; but I cannot believe that a bell was contemplated by the legislature as among the objects authorized to be furnished for a school-house. It is therefore my opinion that it is not a necessary appendage within the meaning of the statute, and that a tax cannot be voted to provide one.

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

A person who is assessed to work on the highway is entitled to vote at school district meetings.

This was an application from the commissioners of common schools of the town of Redhook, for the opinion of the Superintendent with regard to the right of a person who works on the highway, or pays a commutation therefor, to vote at school district meetings.

By A. C. FLAGG, November 28, 1828. Assessments to work on the highway entitle a person to vote in a school district. The phraseology of the old election law was similar to this; and instances must have fallen under your notice where persons would pay a highway tax to entitle themselves to a vote. The old constitution required that persons voting on a tenement, should have "actually paid taxes to the state," and in the act for regulating elections passed March 29, 1813, sec. 10, p. 253, 2 vol. rev. laws of 1813, it is declared that every person having paid taxes on the highway, &c., "shall be considered as having paid taxes to the state" for the purposes of that act.

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

The provision requiring three months notice to trustees of an alteration in their school district is intended for their protection, and to that end is to be benignly construed.

In September, 1827, Messrs. Reuben Stearns and Nathaniel W. Ingraham were set off from district No. 10 in the town of

Locke, and attached to district No. 9 in the same town. In November ensuing, Ingraham was elected a trustee of the latter district, and officiated in that capacity until November, 1828. There was no evidence on record of the alteration above mentioned having been made with the consent of the trustees of district No 10, or that any notice had been served on them by the commissioners; but they were notified of the intention of the commissioners to set off the two individuals referred to, and of the time and place of meeting for the purpose. In November, 1828, a tax was voted in district No. 9 to build a school-house, when a doubt was raised by one of them, whether they had been legally set off from No. 10. The facts were submitted to the Superintendent for his opinion.

By A. C. FLAGG, December 26, 1828. Messrs. Stearns and Ingraham petitioned the commissioners of common schools to be detached from district No. 10 to No. 9, and in September, 1827, their petition was granted; and Ingraham was elected a trustee of No. 9, in which capacity he served until November, 1828. The alteration of district No. 10 by attaching them to No. 9, appears to have been recorded in the usual manner under the old law. Whether the trustees of No. 10 were originally willing to gratify Messrs. Stearns and Ingraham in their request to be annexed to No. 9 or not, and whether notice was served or not, cannot after so long a time affect the relations of Messrs. S. and I. with the trustees and inhabitants of No. 9. The provision requiring the consent of trustees to detach persons from their district, and holding them three months without such consent, was made for the benefit and protection of the trustees, to whose injury the alteration might operate. For instance, trustees might have made contracts and incurred responsibilities, which would operate oppressively, if some of the most wealthy were detached before they had time to collect the tax. In such cases the trus tees are effectually protected by their veto upon the formation ef the district for three months, in which time they can collect their tax. And to carry this intention into effect, the act should be benignly and favorably construed for the protection of the trusBut in relation to Messrs. Stearns and Ingraham, none of these reasons can avail them; they desired to be set to No. 9, and were gratified. The trustees of No. 10, from their silence in the matter, seem to have acquiesced; and as the trustees have not sought to retain Messrs. S. and I., and more than a year has elapsed, they must be considered as having been legally attached to No. 9.

tees.

The Trustees of school district No.

of Walkill, ex parte.

in the town

Trustees of school districts cannot transfer to a teacher the power of enforcing

the collection of his wages.

Teachers are not allowed fees on sums voluntarily paid to them for tuition.

The trustees of school district No.

made a contract with

a teacher, by which he agreed to collect his own wages, with the understanding that he was to receive the usual fees for collection. The question submitted was whether, in either of these respects, the contract was valid.

By A. C. FLAGG, December 30, 1828. The trustees are to contract with and pay the teachers; and those who send to the school are bound to pay the trustees the sums for which they are respectively liable. But the authority to coerce payment is not given to the teacher: persons indebted may pay to him the sums due from them, and his receipt for such payment is valid on the contract which the trustees have made with him. Such collections are allowed by the law. But the district has a collector, and if the sums due the teacher are not voluntarily paid to him, then it is the duty of the trustees, according to subdivision 12, 13 and 14, sec. 75, to ascertain the amount due from each person, by an examination of the school lists, to make out a rate-bill, adding 5 per cent. for collector's fees, and to give the bill and warrant to the collector. This is the only allowance of fees which can be made for collecting. In reference to collections by the teacher, I find the terms of the old law were, that "the wages of teachers shall be collected by the trustees, unless such teachers shall agree to collect the same,” &c. The terms of the law now are, "It shall be the duty of trustees, and they shall have power" "to collect the residue of such wages, excepting such sums as may have been collected by the teachers," &c. The old law authorized an agreement with the teacher to collect his own wages; the new law tolerates such collections, but does not authorize the trustees to transfer to the teacher the power of coercing payment. It is therefore my opinion that the trustees must collect the wages, and that they have no right to make an allowance to the teacher for collecting.

(ANONYMOUS.)

Non-residents are liable to be taxed for pastures and meadows, as land cleared and cultivated.

By A. C. FLAGG, January 3, 1829. The question has been submitted whether salt meadows, from which the owners secured the grass, but which were not otherwise improved, could be assessed in a school district under the 78th section of the revised

school act, the owners being non-residents of that district. Under the old act, cultivated land having no person actually occupying and residing upon it, could not be assessed to a non-resident owner. The 78th section, therefore, is a new provision, evidently intended by the legislature to make all productive real estate contribute in taxes for the erection of school-houses, &c., in the district where it is situated. The person who owns a lot in an adjoining district on which there is no tenement, and which he improves as pasture land or as meadow land, is clearly liable to be taxed for it now; under the old law it was exempt. The owners of the salt meadow improve their land in the same manner, and for similar purposes. Under the old law it could not be taxed; but it is liable to taxation under the Revised Statutes.

Thomas Cooper and others, inhabitants of school district No. 25 in the town of Chazy, ex parte.

Persons annexed to a school district, after the school-house has been built and paid for, cannot be compelled to contribute to the expense of its construction.

In the year 1825, school district No. 25 in the town of Chazy was formed and organized according to law. During the ensuing year, a school-house was built and paid for by a tax on the inhabitants of the district. In the year 1828, several persons were set off from school district No. 2 in said town, to district No. 25, by the commissioners of common schools, without the consent of the trustees of the latter. This was an application to the Superintendent of Common Schools for an order to compel the persons thus annexed to district No. 25 to pay their proportion of the expense of building the school-house, or to set them back to district No. 2.

By A. C. FLAGG, January 12, 1829. District No. 25 in Chazy was organized, and after having built a school-house was enlarged by adding several persons to it without the consent of the trustees. The question is, whether the persons thus set to No. 25 can be assessed for any portion of the school house which had been erected and fully paid for before they became members of the district. There is no law for taxing them under such circumstances.

They can be set back to the district from which they were taken, if, after a hearing of both parties, it is deemed proper. If the persons aggrieved wish a decision on this point, they must give notice as required by the regulations in relation to appeals.