THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION FOR NASSAU COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
LIBERTY BILLINGS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Board of Public Instruction for Nassau County sued Liberty Billings in assumpsit to recover $700 paid for land that the County Superintendent purchased without authorization. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's dismissal, holding that the Board could recover the money as wrongfully paid and received because the Superintendent lacked authority to bind the Board to the purchase.
The Board may recover the money in assumpsit because the Superintendent had no authority to contract for the land purchase without express authorization from the Board, and the money was therefore wrongfully paid by the Board's agent and wrongfully received by Billings.
“The Superintendent has no authority to contract for the purchase of land for school purposes, without being expressly authorized by the board.”
Establishes that the County Superintendent's authority to purchase land is limited and requires express Board authorization.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe County Superintendent of Nassau County bargained with Liberty Billings for the sale of certain lots of land for $700. Billings executed a deed and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corporate Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
This :is an action, of assumpsit commenced by appellant-for money had and received by appellee.: The declaration contains,'but one count, setting.forth that the appellee bargained; with. the ■ County Superintendent Of Na'ssau county for the .-sale,-..and .-.conveyance, to the plaintiff of, certain lots *687of land for the price of $700, and the appellee executed and delivered to the Superintendent a deed .of the. lots, and received from him an order on the Treasurer of the. County-Board for that sum, which was thereupon paid to the appellee by the Treasurer; that the contract tor'said ,lots.wás without the authority of the plaintiffs; the payment was without their consent; they repudiated the .acts ;of; the Superintendent as soon as they discovered the payment, refused to receive the deed, and demanded the return of thé money, which the appellee refused. The plaintiffs have-further inserted in the body of tbie declaration the statement that .the defendant had not a title in fee of the premises, and could not deliver the title and seisin according to the covenants in the deed. This is an unnecessary recital of a fact not material to the proper and complete statement of a cause of action for money had and received. The declaration is complete without it, and this recital is surplusage.
The defendant deniurrs’ to the declaration,'assuming that the action-should be upon the covenants in the deed, and the court gave judgment sustaining the demurrer; ;
By the statute, (Acts of 1869, Chapter 1686-, Sections 14 to 19 inclusive), the Board of Public Instruction of the county is a body corporate, and is authorized to purchase and hold real estate- for school-house- sites; ' and to manage and control the school moneys of the county; and the County Supérinténdent of Schools is" made the Secretary and Agent of the Board. .(See. 17).
The Superintendent has no authority to contract for the purchase of land for school purposes, without -being expressly authorized by the .board. The County Bqardjof Nassau county does not appear to have conferred any authority upon the Superintendent to pufchase the lots in question)' hr to pay for them- out-of the public' funds. ^ " A ’Puc
.The defendant" therefore cannot hold'-the plaintiffs*to the contract made with their’Secretary and Agent'úntil they:be shown-to have authorized Or ratified It; and ' itfollowsv.that *688the money-in question was wrongfully .paid, by the Agent of the plaintiffs, and wrongfully received by the defendant. He is therefore, upon the case made by the declaration, liable to the plaintiffs for the money so received, and the form of action chosen is appropriate. ,,
Had the plaintiffs brought their action in covenant, they would have assumed the validity of the, purchase of, the lots by the Superintendent, which purchase, on the contrary, they repudiated when it was brought to their notice, and demanded the return of the money. . .
The judgment-of the Circuit Court is reversed. '
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cox v. Grose, 97 Fla. 848 (Fla. 1929)…, general assumpsit will not lie. The action under the latter circumstances must be in special assumpsit for á breach of the contract. Evans v. Givens, 22 Fla. 476; Bacon v. Green, 36 Fla. 313, 18 So. R. 870; Board of Public Instruction v. Billings, 15 Fla. 686. In Bacon v. Green, supra, it was said, quoting from Brown v. Harris, 2 Gray (Mass.) 359, “It is a familiar principle of law that when money is paid by one party in contemplation of some action to be done by another, and the thing stipulated to be d…
-
Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. The Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty. Fla., 48 F.4th 1222 (11th Cir. 2022)…), the quoted language suggests that the superintendent is effectively the school board's agent, and that it is the board—not the superintendent—that has ultimate (i.e., "final") authority. Cf. Board of Pub. Instruction for Nassau Cnty. v. Billings, 15 Fla. 686 (1876) (holding that where a superintendent purchased land for school purposes without the school board's USCA11 Case: 21-10619 Date Filed: 09/08/2022 Page: 12 of 25 21-10619 Opinion of the Court 12 consent and approval, the board had the authorit…