Opinion
No. 23276
Opinion Filed February 16, 1932.
(Syllabus.)
1. Schools and School Districts — Estimate of Needs in Accord With Rate of Levy Authorized by Voters not Subject to Reduction by Excise Board.
An estimate made by a common school district for the conduct of a school may not be reduced by the excise board, if the rate of levy authorized by the voters of the school district under the statutory and constitutional limitations is sufficient to produce the amount of the estimate made.
2. Same — Mandamus — Action by Teacher to Compel Excise Board to Approve Estimate for Salary.
A teacher of a common school district, who has a legal contract with the board of directors of the district to teach its school during the following school year, may, in his own name, maintain an action in mandamus to compel the county excise board to approve an estimate for his salary duly certified to it by the board of directors of the school district.
Original action by Elze T. Stockton against the County Excise Board of Payne County for writ of mandamus. Writ is granted.
L.G. Lewis, for plaintiff.
Ernest F. Jenkins, for defendants.
This is an original action in mandamus by Elze T. Stockton against the county excise board of Payne county, Okla., to compel it to approve an estimate for school teacher's salary as certified to it by the board of directors of school district No. 69, Payne county.
Plaintiff has a legal contract to teach school in school district No. 69 for the year 1931-1932. The board of all rectors certified an estimate in the sum of $800 for salary for its teacher for that year. The voters of the district, by a majority vote thereof at the annual school meeting held the last Tuesday of March, 1931, authorized an excess levy sufficient to meet the estimated needs of the district. The excise board reduced the estimate for teacher's salary from $800 to $680, and refused to approve the estimate as certified to it by the directors of the district. It was its duty to approve the estimate as certified to it by the school district. See State ex rel. Board of Education v. Excise Board of Payne County, No. 23153, decided Jan. 26, 1932, 155 Okla. 227, 7 2d 473, and School Dist. No. 4, Garfield Co., v. Independent School Dist. No. 4 1/2 Garfield County, 153 Okla. 171, 4 P.2d 1031.
Defendants contend plaintiff is not the real party in interest and cannot, in his own name, maintain this action. This question has been decided adversely to them in the case of Excise Board of Creek Co. v. State ex rel. Kissick, 105 Okla. 102, 231 P. 862. Under this authority, plaintiff can maintain this action.
The writ is granted.
RILEY, CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and McNEILL, JJ., concur. LESTER, C. J., concurs in the law as stated in syllabus No. 1, and dissents to syllabus No. 2.
CLARK, V. C. J., dissents for the reason that it is his opinion that under the contract the teacher cannot maintain this action. KORNEGAY, J., dissents.