# School Dist. No. 9 v. MAXWELL ET UX.

> Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 1950 · 189 Or. 317

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552748

## Case

- **Full name:** SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 v. MAXWELL Et Ux.
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 31, 1950
- **Citations:** 189 Or. 317; 220 P.2d 95; 219 P.2d 155; 1950 Ore. LEXIS 192
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Belt
- **Judges:** Lusk, Chief Justice, and Brand, Belt, Bailey and Latourette, Justices
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552748

## Opinion text

On Petitions eor Rehearing
BELT, J.
Both parties in this cause, which involved the right of ownership and possession of a school bus, have petitioned for a rehearing. The appellants assert that the decision of this court has put such a restriction on a school district from selling or disposing of its property, if a petition for consolidation has been filed, that it will be unable to function. We think the opinion is not reasonably susceptible to such an interpretation. We stated: “The mere filing of a petition for consolidation would not preclude a district school *327 board when duly authorized from selling or otherwise disposing of property of the district in order properly to function. ” We adhere to our conclusion that the officers of School District No. 1 were undertaking, in circumvention of the statute (§ 111-836, O. C. L. A., as amended) to liquidate the indebtedness of the District pending consolidation proceedings. This it had no right to do.
Respondent-cross appellant urges that the court erred in not awarding damages to it for the wrongful detention of the bus pending the appeal to this .court. We are asked to enter judgment against the defendants and their sureties on the supersedeas bond for the damages sustained. We have no authority to do this in this kind of proceeding. It is not an appeal from a money judgment. Authorities cited by cross appellant involve independent actions on the supersedeas bond itself and are not in point. This cause was tried in equity. We approved the finding of the circuit court that no damages for wrongful detention of the bus should be awarded, and we adhere to that conclusion.
The petitions for rehearing will be denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552748. Public record. Not legal advice.