Rouseville Borough School District v. Cornplanter Township School District

Citations

• 29 Pa. Super. 214
• 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 299

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Evidence—Parol evidence to explain — School district — Township — Borough—Apportionment of property.</p> <p>Parol evidence which is explanatory of the subject-matter of a written contract consistent with its terms and necessary for its interpretation, is admissible.</p> <p>The school district of a borough which had been cut out of a school district of a township, entered into an agreement in writing with the latter by which it was provided that the school district of the township should “have all the resources, excepting the contents of the storeroom,” and that the school district of the township “will divide the state appropriation pro rata, if the appropriation is for the year of June the first, nineteen hundred, to June the first, nineteen hundred and one.” Held, that parol evidence was admissible to show what were the resources spoken of, what were the contents of the storeroom, and what was intended by the reference to the state appropriation.</p> <p>School law — School district — Borough.</p> <p>The Act of July 24, 1895, P. L. 259, relating to the adjustment of indebtedness and property rights between township districts and borough districts carved out of the former, did not prevent the districts from endeavoring by agreement to arrange a mutually satisfactory division between themselves.</p> <p>School law — State appropriation — Boroughs—Townships—Act of July 15, 1897.</p> <p>The Act of July 15, 1897, P. L. 271, relating to the distribution of the state appropriation among the several school districts of the commonwealth, has no application to a division of funds between the school district of a township and a new district created by the erection of a borough out of a portion of the territory of the township.</p>