Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tack.142 Upon the formation of a new school district, it is often provided by statute that the voters shall meet within a designated time and organize by the election of officers and the transaction of other necessary business. Such a provision has been held mandatory.143

Records. The records of school districts and school boards are usually regarded, when duly certified by the officer having custody, as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated,1 and they are also subject to the inspection, ordinarily, of any voter of the district. They may be altered by the proper officers, even after a change in the personnel, to show true conditions and facts,145 and a failure to properly keep them does not ordinarily render invalid the proceedings for which they were intended to be a record.140

§ 1080. Powers of school directors and officers other than of common school districts.

In many states the law provides for the organization of independent, graded, normal and other schools of a higher grade than those maintained by common school districts and in which the instruction received is broader in its scope. To the voters of these districts or the board of trustees in which the management may be vested is given by law other rights and powers than those enumerated in the previous section and which are rendered neces

house is sufficient authority to act; a majority of the taxable residents of the district need not be present. Edinburg American Land & Mortg. Co. v. City of Mitchell, 1 S. D. 593, 48 N. W. 131; Harrington v. School Dist. No. 6, 30 Vt. 155. The prudential committee of a school district have no authority without vote of the district to employ counsel to defend a suit against an officer of a district in which the latter may be interested. Holmes & Bull Furniture Co. v. Hedges, 13 Wash. 696, 43 Pac. 944. See, also, cases cited under notes 116-119, of preceding section.

142 Woods v. Inhabitants of Bristol, 84 Me. 358, 24 Atl. 865; In re Purdy, 56 App. Div. 544, 67 N. Y. Supp. 642.

143 School Dist. of Agency v. Wallace, 75 Mo. App. 317.

144 Hadley v. Chamberlin, 11 Vt. 618. But an amendment of school records cannot be made on the trial of a cause for the purpose of meeting a particular decision of the court. But see Saville v. School Dist. No. 27, 22 Kan. 529.

145 Board of Education of Glencoe v. Trustees of Schools, 174 Ill. 519, 51 N. E. 656.

146 Higgins v. Reed, 8 Iowa, 298.

[ocr errors]

148

sary by the grade or character of the school and its instruction given 147 or existing conditions which have rendered necessary the establishment of such a school or the organization of such a district.14 In common with the grant of powers to all subordinate and public quasi corporations, the rule of law applies of strict construction and a consequent limitation of the rights which may be exercised by them or the duties which they can legally perform.149 The powers of an official board having in charge city, graded, normal or other schools of a higher class, are commonly sufficient to authorize the erection of school houses and the making of permanent improvements without a reference to the voters. of the district and restricted only by constitutional or statutory provisions in respect to the incurring of indebtedness.150

1081. State universities.

A state university represents in a scheme or plan of public education in a state an institution wherein an education of the broadest and most liberal character can be obtained. It is usually made a separate quasi corporation with the right to use a common seal and altar the same at pleasure with the control

147 Chico High School Board v. Butte County Sup'rs, 118 Cal. 115, 50 Pac. 275; Board of Education v. Cumming, 103 Ga. 641, 29 S. E. 488; Spring v. Wright, 63 Ill. 90; Galesburg Educational Board v. Arnold, 112 III. 11; Campbell v. City of Indiapapolis, 155 Ind. 186, 57 N. E. 920; Bellmeyer v. Independent Dist. of Marshalltown, 44 Iowa, 564; Posey v. Trustees of Corydon Public School, 19 Ky. L. R. 466, 38 S. W. 1063; Goldsboro Graded School v. Broadhurst, 109 N. C. 228, 13 S. E. 781.

148 Miller v. Dailey, 136 Cal. 212, 68 Pac. 1029. A joint board of normal school trustees have no right to arbitrate the question of an individual student's right to be admitted to the normal school. Hanover School Tp. v. Grant, 125 Ind. Abb. Corp. Vol. III. — 28.

557, 25 N. E. 872; Fatout v. Indianapolis School Com'rs, 102 Ind. 223; Pingree v. Board of Education of Detroit, 99 Mich. 404, 58 N. W. 333. An act making the mayor of Detroit a member ex officio of the board of education is not unconstitutional. Rose v. Hufty, 63 N. J. Law, 195, 42 Atl. 836; State v. Fowle, 103 Wis. 388, 79 N. W. 419.

149 Peers v. Board of Education, 72 Ill. 598; Adams v. State, 82 Ill. 132; Stevenson v. School Directors, 87 Ill. 255; Adams v. Brenan, 177 Ill. 194, 52 N. E. 314, 42 L. R. A. 718. But see Burnham v. Police Jury of Claiborne Parish, 107 La. 513, 32 So. 87.

150 Fatout v. Indianapolis School Com'rs, 102 Ind. 223; Times Pub. Co. v. White, 23 R. I. 334, 50 Atl. 383.

vested in a board commonly called a board of regents. To this board, from existing conditions, as will readily be seen, is necessarily granted the legal right to exercise broad powers.151 The qualifications of individual members, their term of office, and the manner of their appointment or election, are designated by law and the manner of filling vacancies specified. Upon them is imposed the general supervision and control of the university which includes the election or appointment of professors, teachers, officers and employes, the determination of their salaries and terms. of office, and the moral and educational qualifications of applicants for admission. They also may have the right to prescribe the text books and courses of study, and in their discretion confer such degrees and diplomas as are customary in colleges or universities of similar character. 152 They may be also charged with the duty of making special surveys and reports concerning the geological or natural history of the state or economic conditions arising therein. As a rule in the selection of professors, instructors, officers, or assistants in the exercise, management and government of the university, no partiality or preference is allowed on account of political or religious belief or opinion, and sectarian teachings are usually forbidden.

§ 1082. School property.

Property held or acquired for school purposes consists largely, if not entirely, of lands and invested funds; school sites and school houses; 153 and furniture, libraries and supplies.154 The loss of school property from unwise investment or misappropriation by officials charged with its care seems to have been more carefully guarded against than other public property and the laws protecting school funds and school property are more strictly enforced than legislation of any other character. 155 As stated in a previous section,150 the Federal government has liberally endowed the cause of public education through the United States by

151 But see Callvert v. Windsor, 26 Wash. 368, 67 Pac. 91.

152 See Minn. Rev. Laws 1905, §§ 1470 et seq.

153 See §§ 1069, 1071 and 1078 ante, and §§ 1083 and 1084, post.

154 See §§ 1071 and 1078, ante, and § 1085, post.

155 Hurt v. Kelly, 43 Mo. 238; Mann v. Best, 62 Mo. 491; Standifer v. Wilson, 93 Tex. 232, 54 S. W. 898.

156 See § 1067, ante.

its gifts of public lands. Proceeds from sales of these form the basis of public school funds in different states. The title to school lands is vested ordinarily in the state 157 and detailed statutory provisions exist prescribing the manner in which school lands can be disposed of 158 with the time159 and terms of lease or sale. 160 Statutes relating to these questions are strictly construed and a sale or lease to be legal must be in the manner provided. 161 Boards of investment are commonly established by state legislatures for

157 Long v. Brown, 4 Ala. 622; Widner v. State, 49 Ark. 172, 4 S. W. 657; School Dist. v. Driver, 50 Ark. 346, 7 S. W. 387; Clark v. State, 109 Ind. 388, 10 N. E. 125; Helphrey v. Ross, 19 Iowa, 40; Baker v. Newland, 25 Kan. 25; Wright V. Lauderdale County Sup'rs, 71 Miss. 800, 15 So. 116; Morton v. Grenada Academies, 16 Miss. (8 Smedes & M.) 773. School lands are trust property for the benefit of the whole township and the legislature has no power to divert them from that purpose.

Hester v. Crisler, 36 Miss. 681; State v. Crumb, 157 Mo. 545, 57 S. W. 1030. The state board of education is authorized in the name of the state to bring an action to set aside an illegal patent to school lands. But see Moore v. School Trustees, 19 Ill. 83. The title is held by the state in trust for common school purposes and trustees of the schools of the township may sue in equity in respect to matters affecting the school lands within their township.

Kissell V. St. Louis Public Schools, 16 Mo. 553; Patter. Fagan, 38 Mo. 70; Lowry v. Francis, 10 Tenn. (2 Yerg.) 534; Milam County v. Robertson, 33 Tex. 366. Counties of Texas are only trustees of the school lands for the use of the people. Galveston County v.

Tankersley, 39 Tex. 651; Worley v. State, 48 Tex. 1.

158 Hogan v. Winslow, 45 Cal. 588; Batchelder v. Willey, 64 Cal. 44, 30 Pac. 573; Seeger v. Mueller, 133 Ill. 86; Barker v. Torrey, 69 Tex. 74, 21 Miss. (13 Smedes & M.) 31; Maupin v. Parker, 3 Mo. 310; Corpe v. Brooks, 8 Or. 222. The Oregon board of commissioners for the sale of school lands are a department of the state government coordinate with the courts and its decisions they cannot review. McInnes v. Wallace (Tex. Civ. App.) 38 S. W. 816; Harrington V. Smith, 28 Wis. 43.

159 Garland v. Jackson, 7 La. Ann. 68 Barker v. Torrey, 69 Tex. 7, 4 S. W. 646; State v. School Land Com'rs, 9 Wis. 200.

160 Board of Education of San Francisco v. Grant, 118 Cal. 39, 50 Pac. 5; Kidder V. Trustees of Schools, 10 Ill. (5 Gilman) 191; Stout v. Hyatt, 13 Kan. 233; State v. Emmert, 19 Kan. 546; Bratton v. Cross, 22 Kan. 673. Only a resident can purchase school lands of the state to the exclusion of other parties. Telle v. School Board, 44 La. Ann. 365, 10 So. 801; State v. Kendall, 15 Neb. 242.

161 People v. Roche, 124 Ill. 9, 14 N. E. 701; Lee v. Payne, 4 Mich. 106; Wright v. Burnham, 31 Minn. 285. Conditional sale of school lands

the investment of funds for school purposes derived from a sale of public school lands or from special taxes imposed for the benefit of the common school fund.162 These boards are limited in the investments they can legally make, and, in the purchase of bonds or other securities 163 or in the making of loans,164 they are restricted to those of the character designated. Loans or investments made by them must be made in the manner provided 1 and a failure to observe the strict requirements of the law ordinarily subjects one to a personal and civil responsibility as well as a liability under some provision of a criminal code.16€

§ 1083. School sites and buildings.

165

The title to school sites and buildings is commonly vested in the local school district or in its board of directors or managers as

unauthorized and void. Bolivar County v. Coleman, 71 Miss. 832, 15 So. 107; Atkinson's Lessee V. Dailey, 2 Ohio, 212. A lease should be properly acknowledged. Strathern v. Gilmore, 184 Pa. 265, 39 Atl. 83; Pickens v. Reed, 31 Tenn. (1 Swan) 80; State v. Janssen, 2 Wis. 423; McCabe v. Mazzuchelli, 13 Wis. 478. But see Forsdick v. Tallahatchie County, 76 Miss. 622, 24 So. 962; State v. School & University Land Com'rs, 14 Wis. 345.

162 Montgomery County v. Auchley, 103 Mo. 492, 15 S. W. 626. Their powers are limited. See Benton County v. Morgan, 163 Mo. 661, 64 S. W. 119, as to sale of land by sheriff school-fund mortgage. Kubli v. Martin, 5 Or. 436.

163 Trustees of Schools v. Petefish, 181 Ill. 255, 54 N. E. 920; In re School Fund, 15 Neb. 684, 50 N. W. 272.

164 Bush v. Shipman, 5 Ill. (4 Scam.) 186. The legislature has the power to direct in what manner school funds shall be loaned, upon what security, and at what rate of interest. Lopp v. Woodward, 1 Ind.

App. 105, 27 N. E. 575; Carter v. Sherman, 63 Iowa, 689; Knox County v. Goggin, 105 Mo. 182, 16 S. W. 684. Unauthorized payment of school-fund mortgage to deputy county clerk who failed to pay the amount into the treasury does not release the mortgage.

165 Trustees of School v. Southard, 31 Ill. App. 359; Ware v. State, 74 Ind. 181. This case, however, is modified in State v. Levi, 99 Ind. 77, which holds that where an official borrows and loans school moneys and gives a mortgage to secure the loan, the mortgage is voidable only at the option of those having supervisory control of the fund. See, also, the later case of Stockwell v. State, 101 Ind. 1.

Emmet County v. Skinner, 48 Iowa, 244. A board of supervisors may provide that the school fund shall only be loaned to residents of the county. But see Edwards v. Trustees of Schools, 30 Ill. App. 528; Grant v. Huston, 105 Mo. 97, 16 S. W. 680; Mann v. Best, 62 Mo. 491.

166 Lawrey v. Sterling, 41 Or. 518,

« AnteriorContinuar »