
    Rochford v. School Dist. No. 6, Lyman County, et al.
    
    1. Rev. Pol. Code, § 2366, declares that no contract binding on a school district shall be made in any ease except by the school board or board of education, acting as such at a regular meeting or regularly called special meeting, excepting contracts for the employment of teachers. Held, that a school warrant issued in violation of the statute is void.
    2. There can be no recovery against a guarantor of a school warrant until presented to the treasurer as required by statute and payment refused.
    (Opinion filed May 31, 1905.)
    
      Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county; Hon. Joseph W. Jones, Judge.
    Action by G. E. Rochford against School District No. 6, Lyman county, and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Joe Kirby, for appellant.
    
      B, G. Huddle and J. G, Barline, for respondents.
   Fuller, J.

The undisputed evidence offered at the trial of this action to recover the amount of a purported school warrant offered and received in evidence conclusively shows the same to be wholly without consideration and void as to the school district, because issued in plain violation of section 2366 of the Revised Political Code. Capital Bank of St. Paul v. School Dist., 1 N. D. 479, 48 N. W. 363. Assuming, as contended by counsel for appellant, that respondent Bills guaranteed the payment, there could be no recovery against him, in any event, until the warrant was presented to the treasurer as required by statute and payment refused. Greely v. McCoy, 3 S. D. 218, 52 N. W. 1050. That this was neither done nor attempted is conceded, and the trial court was fully justified in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.  