Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/504

 whether in the hands of the original party or of a purchaser before maturity and for value.

PPEAL from district court, Stutsman county; Hon., Judge.

White & Hewit and Bartlett Tripp, for appellant.

Mr. Tripp argued as follows: The court below directed the verdict as appears from the abstract upon the ground that “the district exceeded its authority in issuing orders for a greater amount than could be raised by the levy of a tax in one year," and was governed no doubt by the language of the supreme court of Dakota Territory in Farmers & Merchants Nat. Bank v. School District No. 53, 42 N. W. 767. One of the essential distinctions between that case and the case at bar, which seems to have been overlooked by the lower court, or which was deemed by it not to apply, was "that the inhabitants of the district did not direct the making of or make the contract, and had never in any way ratified the acts of the school board in issuing such warrants." In this case we say there was evidence of ratification on the part of the inhabitants of the district of the acts of the board. The court below seems to have been of the opinion that such evidence was immaterial, the inference being from the act of directing the verdict, that the learned judge was of the opinion that the district could not ratify such unauthorized acts of the board; that the district could not do indirectly what it had not power to do directly. We think the court below has misconstrued and extended the meaning of the language used by the court in Farmers & Merchants Nat. Bank v. School District No. 53 supra. It is true that a hasty reading of this decision alone would seem to give the impression that the court intended to hold in all cases, where the warrants or orders exceeded the amount of the tax levy of that year, they were absolutely void. This the court did not and could not intend to hold. The language of the court must be applied to the facts of that case. What was in fact determined in that case, and how far it is authority in the case at bar can best be determined by an examination of the companion case submitted with it at