
    Town of Barre vs. School District No. 5 in Barre.
    January Term, 1897.
    Present: Ross, C. J., Rowell, Tyler, Munson and Start, JJ. ’
    
      Division of School Money among Taxpayers Illegal.
    
    Neither before nor since the act of 1892 could a school district divide among its taxpayers money devoted by law to school purposes.
    By Acts of 1894, No. 165, § 73, the plaintiff was authorized to maintain this action in its own name.
    Assumpsit. Heard upon an agreed statement of facts at the September Term, 1896, Washington County, Taft, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff for the stipulated sum with interest since April 1, 1893.
    The defendant excepted.
    The defendant was a school district until Acts of 1892, No. 20 and 21 took effect. March 28, 1893, it voted “to divide the surplus funds in the treasury amongthetaxpayers of the district,pro rata, on the grand list.” The treasurer had on that date after the settlement of the pecuniary affairs of the district, $83.12, derived from taxes of the district and State, the public moneys, and the Huntington fund, and on the same day divided the money in accordance with the vote. The plaintiff is the town mentioned in § 73 of No. 165 of the Acts of 1894, and the defendant is entirely within the present limits of the plaintiff. Demand was seasonably made after April 1, 1893.
    ' Richard A. Hoar for the defendant.
    This action should have been brought in the name of the Town School District, as in Barre v. Cook, 68 Yt. 88.
    The action cannot be maintained because the money had been divided before April 1, 1893, when the law of 1892 took effect. School District No. 16 v. Concord, 64 N. H. 235.
    
      John W. Gordon for the plaintiff.
    
      -. The case is ruled by those already decided. Barre v. School District No. rj, 67 Yt. 108; School District y. Pierce, 67 Yt. 317.
   Start, J.

The money the defendant voted to divide among its taxpayers was, by law, devoted to the purpose of maintaining public schools; and the defendant held it in trust for this single purpose. It had no right or power, either before or after the act of 1892, abolishing school districts, took effect, to divert any of it from the purpose to which the law had devoted it; and its attempted division of the funds among its taxpayers was null, and is not a defence to this action. The case of Barre v. School District No. 13, 67 Vt. 108, and the same against Cook, 68 Vt. 88, are sufficient authority for this holding. Section 73 of No. 165 of the Acts of 1894 provides, that school funds remaining in the hands of any old school district in the town of Barre may be recovered in the name of the town. Therefore, the action is properly brought by the town of Barre.

Judgment affirmed.  