Laserfiche WebLink
01/09/2007 09:32 FAX 851 223 4987 JENSEN BELL CONVERSE <br />01/09/2007 09:12 FAX 6512971235 <br />003/008 <br />ATTY GENERAL [1 008 /009 <br />Mr. L. P. Hlomholm -- 2. December 6, 1954 <br />of the bond, namely, October 1, 1939. Minnesota Statutes 1953, <br />C? 541.05, Clause (1), Which states the same provision of law as <br />was in effect on October 1, 1939. In the case of Batchelder v. <br />City of Faribault (1942), 212 Minn. 2516 253, 3 A. W. 2d ?IS, the <br />court held, in considering bonds of a municipality, the statute <br />of limitation `o be a defense Which could be raised by a munici- <br />pality, as well as by an individual. <br />The powers and duties or a school board ars enumerate. in <br />M.S. 1953, 125,06. Subd. 21 thereof provides that "In ell <br />proper tassel it shall prosecute and defend actions by or against <br />the district.' (Emphasis added.) <br />We believe the controlling question is whether a school <br />board has the right to Waive the statute of limitations. Ws realise <br />there is some authority reeogniming the power of public official's to <br />waive the defines. See Weir v. Silver tow Cou9tr (Mont. 1942), <br />124 F. 2d 1003. It will be noted, however, that the dissenting opin- <br />ion hold that public officials are trustees of all the people and <br />have no power to waive the statute of limitations. <br />We believe that the prevailing and applicable rule is that <br />emunciatsd in the ease of $ord*an v. School Dist; No. 43 0 akO tpW <br />Cquq y (1941), 190 Okla. 135, 121 P. 2d 290. The court, at p. 291 <br />at the Pacific report, said: <br />"It is generally true that a private person may <br />voluntarily waive a substantial right and may, it <br />be Chooses voluntarily dispose of his funds as he <br />desires and at his discretion, bat that rule does <br />4 <br />