In Stubbs v. Excise Board of Muskogee County, 173 Okla. 341, 49 P.2d 83, we held that where an individual has a particular interest of his own independent of that which he holds in common with people at large in the performance of some statutory duty imposed on a public officer or board, the mandamus action may be maintained in the individual's own name. In Stockton v. Excise Board of Payne County, 155 Okla. 120, 8 P.2d 57, we stated: "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 duty certified to it by the board of directors of the school district."

"An estimate made by a 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." In so doing it is apparent that the court had in mind that section 12675, O. S. 1931, was a special statute relating to school districts and limited the general powers which might have otherwise been granted to the excise board so far as school districts were concerned under the provisions of section 12677. See, also, Stockton v. Excise Board of Payne County et al., 155 Okla. 120, 8 P.2d 57; State ex rel. Consolidated School District No. 2, Payne County, v. Excise Board of Payne County et al., 155 Okla. 121, 8 P.2d 66; State ex rel. Joint School District No. 10, Payne County v. Excise Board of Payne County et al., 155 Okla. 122, 8 P.2d 58; Board of Education, School District No. 60, Logan County, et al. v. County Excise Board of Logan County et al., 155 Okla. 214, 8 P.2d 683; State ex rel. Board of Education v. Excise Board of Payne County et al., 155 Okla. 227, 7 P.2d 473. It is apparent in these cases that this court in construing section 12675 held therein the excise board was specifically denied any authority to decrease the additional 10 mills which might be voted by the people, or the statutory 5 mills which was given to the school district by the law. To the same effect is State ex rel. Board of Education, City of Tulsa, v. Morley, 168 Okla. 259, 34 P.2d 258.

We must bear in mind in this connection that an excise board is without power to appropriate less than the amount of the estimated needs of an independent school district if the amount estimated to be needed can be appropriated within constitutional and statutory limitations, and similarly when the estimated needs of the independent school district exceed the amount that can be raised within constitutional and statutory limitations, the excise board cannot make greater reductions than are necessary to bring the appropriations within the limitations imposed by law. State ex rel. Board of Ed. v. Excise Board of Payne Co., 155 Okla. 227, 7 P.2d 473; Board of Education v. Excise Board of Logan County, 155 Okla. 214, 8 P.2d 683. See, also, section 12657, O. S. 1931; Stockton v. Excise Board of Payne County, 155 Okla. 120, 8 P.2d 57. We must consider the amount of available income of the Tulsa school district in order to determine the extent to which appropriations can lawfully be made.

By this provision the excise board was deprived of the power to appropriate less than the amount of the estimate made by the school district unless the levy required to meet the estimate should exceed the constitutional limit. State ex rel. Board of Education v. Excise Board of Payne County, 155 Okla. 227, 7 P.2d 473; Stockton v. Excise Board of Payne County, 155 Okla. 120, 8 P.2d 57; State ex rel. Con. Dist., etc., v. Excise Board of Payne County et al., 155 Okla. 121, 8 P.2d 66; State ex rel. Joint School District v. Excise Board of Payne County, 155 Okla. 122, 8 P.2d 58; Board of Education of Logan County et al. v. Excise Board of Logan County, 155 Okla. 214, 8 P.2d 683. While our statutes contain no provision respecting the power of the excise board in connection with supplemental appropriations which corresponds to the provisions of section 12675, supra, the reason for the omission is at once apparent and obvious.

This decision is controlling in this case. See, also, Stockton v. Excise Board of Payne Co., 155 Okla. 120, 8 P.2d 57; State ex rel. Joint School Dist. No. 102, Payne County, v. Excise Board of Payne Co., 155 Okla. 121, 8 P.2d 58; State ex rel Consolidated School Dist. No. 2 of Payne Co. v. Excise Board of Payne Co., 155 Okla. 122, 8 P.2d 66; Board of Education, School Dist. No. 60, Logan County, v. Excise Board of Logan County, 155 Okla. 214, 8 P.2d 683. The excise board of said county is directed to approve the estimate or budget of the estimated needs for the separate schools of said district for the fiscal year 1931-1932, in the amount and in the items shown by said estimate, and to approve and make the ad valorem tax levy needed and necessary therefor, provided the same may be made within the limitation prescribed by law, and such other and further action not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.