
    School Directors of The Town of Sigel vs. Coe and others.
    School Law. Liability of treasurer of joint district, where the town in which the school house is, adopts the township system.
    
    C., elected treasurer of Joint School District No. 1 of the towns of E. and S., filed his bond, running to said district, binding him to pay over to the persons entitled thereto all moneys which should come into his hands as such treasurer. The school house of such joint district is in the town of S. During C.’s term, the latter town adopted the township system of school government, under ch. 182, Laws of 1869, which provides that the clerks of the several subdistricts, together with the clerks of those joint districts whose school houses are within the town, shall constitute the town board of school directors, empowers said board, as a corporation, to sue and be sued, etc., vests in it the title, care and custody of all property of the subdistricts of such town, confers upon it “ all the powers of school district boards ” under previous statutes, and declares that it shall have the entire control of any joint subdistrict whose school house is in such town. C. subsequently refused to pay over to the town treasurer of said town of S. the school moneys in his hands. Held,
    
    1. That the facts recited show a breach of the conditions of the bond.
    2. That the board of school directors of the town of S. are the legal successors of Joint School District No. 1, and may sue in then own name on said bond.
    3. That C. and his sureties cannot, in this action upon the bond, raise the question whether the fund in dispute must be disposed of for the sole use and benefit of the inhabitants of Joint School District No. 1.
    APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Ohyppeioa County.
    Action on tbe official bond given by Coe, February 10, 1873, as treasurer of Joint School District No. 1 of tbe towns of Edson and Sigel in Cbippewa county. Tbe bond runs to said district, as the statute requires (Tay. Stats., 550, § 37); and the condition expressed therein is, that said Coe shall faithfully discharge the duties of his said office, and pay over to the person or persons entitled thereto, upop the proper order therefor, all sums of money which shall come’ into his hands as such treasurer, etc. The complaint alleges facts showing that in 1874 the town of Sigel, in which the school house in said joint district is situate, adopted the township system of school government; and that the board of school directors of said town was thereupon duly organized; and it avers that said board became the lawful successor of said joint district, and had a right to the possession, control and use of all moneys and other property thereof, and that the office of treasurer of such joint district became thereby vacant, and the term of office of said Coe, as such treasurer, determined, and he became liable to pay over to the town treasurer of the town of Sigel, for the use and benefit of the plaintiff, all moneys, etc., in his hands as treasurer; that on the 22d of August, 1874, an accounting was had with Coe concerning moneys so in his hands, and he was found to be indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $313.60; and that he refused on demand to pay over any part of said sum except $105, and there still remains unpaid of said sum, $208.60; for.which judgment is demanded.
    The defendants demurred to the complaint as not stating a cause of action; and the plaintiff appealed from an order sustaining the demurrer.
    The cause was submittéd for both parties on briefs.
    
      Bvngham dki Jenhins, for appellant,
    relied upon ch. 182, Laws of 1869 (Tay, Stats., pp. 586, 594). The money in Coe’s hands is a part of the property belonging to subdistricts of the town of Sigel, with the title, care and custody of which the plaintiff is invested; and as the legal successor of the joint district it may sue on the bonds. As to the power of the legislature in the premises, they cited Layton v. Bfew Orleans, 12 La. An., 515; Cvra/rd v. IPiiladelphia, 7 Wall., 1; People v. 
      
      Hill) 7 Cal., 97; Inhabitants of North Yarmouth v. Shillings, 45 Me., 133; Gorham v. Springfield, 21 id., 58; Cooley’s Con. Lira., 192, and cases cited in note; Dillon’s M. C., § 47, and cases cited in note, and §§ 36, 37. “
    
      Wheeler & Marshall, for respondents,
    contended tbat tbe director of Joint District No. 1 was alone authorized io bring an action on the bond. (Tay. Stats., 550, § 36). The law providing for the township system gives the custody of all the property in the district to the town board of school directors; but it does not provide a remedy for a refusal of the district officers to pass over the property in their hands. The act of 1869 indeed declares that “all the powers conferred upon school district boards ” by ch. 155 of 1863, are thereby conferred upon the town board of directors; but the act of 1863 did not confer the power to bring suit on the treasurer’s bond upon the district board, but upon the director. Where a party has no specific legal remedy under the statutes, he must resort to the writ of mandarmis. State v. Washington Go., 2 Chand., 247; School District No. 2 v. School District No. 1, 3 Wis., 333. 2. So much of the law authorizing the township system of school government as tends to take from the joint district the property which it had acquired for its exclusive benefit, without the consent of the taxpayers of the district, is unconstitutional. Town of Milwaukee v. City of Milwaukee, 12 Wis., 103.
   Cole, J.

The bond given by Ooe, as treasurer of Joint School District No. 1 of the towns of Edson and Sigel, bound him to pay over to the person or persons entitled thereto, all moneys which should come into his hands as treasurer. The complaint shows that the schoolhouse of this district is located in the town of Sigel, and that this town adopted the township system of school government under ch. 182, Laws of 1869, subsequent to Goe’s election as treasurer. This statute provides that the clerks of the several subdistricts, together with tlie clerks of those joint subdistricts tbe schoolhouses of 'which are situated within the town, shall constitute the town board of school ’directors; creates the board a corporation with power to sue and be sued; and vests in the board, in its corporate capacity, the title, care and custody of all schoolhouses, furniture and other property of all kinds belonging to the sub-districts therein. The act certainly constitutes the plaintiff in the action the legal successor of the district of which Coe was chosen treasurer.

But it is insisted by the counsel for the defendants, that the town board of school directors have no right to bring an action for the breach of Coe's bond. The complaint shows that he has money in his hands belonging to Joint District No. 1, which he refuses to pay over on demand. "While the facts show a violation of the conditions of the bond, it is claimed that the appellant had no authority to bring the action. ITad the school district system remained unchanged, the action on the bond would have to be brought in the name of Joint School District No. 1. Sec. 3.6, ch. 23, Tay. Stats. But the law providing for the township system of school government transfers to the town board of school directors the powers and duties of the school-district boards, and by necessary implication gives the former corporation the power to bring all actions in respect to the property of all kinds belonging to the sub-districts, including the right of prosecuting the treasurer’s bond. As to the correctness of this view, it seems to us there can be no reasonable doubt. Certainly the joint subdistrict has no right to maintain the action, as that right was conferred upon another corporation which had superseded it under the law.

But it is argued that the moneys in Cue’s hands were raised for the sole use and benefit of Joint School District No. 1, and that it cannot be taken away from that district without the consent of the inhabitants thereof. The treasurer is in no position to raise any question as to the proper disposition of this fund. He will liave diseliarged liis duty in respect to it when Re Ras paid it to tlie plaintiff, wliicli is lawfully entitled to its care and custody.

It follows from tRese views tRat tRe demurrer to tRe complaint was improperly sustained.

By the Gourt. — TRe order of tRe circuit court is reversed, and tRe cause is remanded for furtRer proceedings according to law.  