Attwood v. Rogers, County Judge

• Citation: 177 S.W.2d 723,206 Ark. 834
• Decision Date: 14 February 1944
• Docket Number: 4-7232
• Parties: Attwood v. Rogers, County Judge
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

177 S.W.2d 723

206 Ark. 834

Attwood v. Rogers, County Judge

No. 4-7232

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 14, 1944

Appeal from Cleveland Circuit Court; John M. Golden, Judge.

Affirmed.

DuVal L. Purkins, for appellant.

Max M. Smith and O. E. Gates, for appellee.

OPINION

Smith J.

Appellant says in his brief that: "This appeal seeks a definite answer to the question 'Does the county court or county board of education have jurisdiction of an election contest for membership on the county board of education?'"

In the recent case of McLeod v. Richardson, 204 Ark. 558, 163 S.W.2d 166, there was involved the question of jurisdiction to hear a contest for the office of school director, and it was there held that the county board of education, and not the county court, had this jurisdiction. That opinion reviewed various acts of the General Assembly in which jurisdiction of school matters had been transferred to and from the county court, and the state of the law was declared as of the date of the enactment of act 327 of the Acts of 1941, p. 838.

The opinion in the McLeod case, supra, pointed out that this act 327 had created county boards of education composed of five members, and that § 11 of this act had vested in the board ". . . All powers, duties, and the responsibilities respecting the public schools . . . which heretofore have been vested in the several county courts . are hereby transferred to and vested in the respective county boards of education," with the exception that ". . . The canvassing of returns and certification of results of all school elections . . . shall continue to be vested in the county courts."

It was there said that the result and effect of this legislation was that county courts are now vested with but two powers respecting school matters, to-wit: canvassing returns and certifying results of school elections, but that the act contained no provision for contests of such elections, and that it was, therefore, necessary to look to other and prior legislation to determine where this jurisdiction resided.

There appeared to be a hiatus in the law so far as express authority to hear such contests was concerned, and we said that it was not without misgiving that we held that the jurisdiction was with the county board of education, and not with the county courts. We were led to this conclusion for the reason there stated, that all powers, duties and responsibilities formerly inhering in county courts (other than canvassing returns and certifying results) had been placed with county boards of education, and the general plans of the 1941 legislation appeared to have been to repeal prior legislation passed in 1933 and 1935 conferring these powers on county courts, and that it was not illogical to assume that the intent of act 327 was to return to the county boards of education the authority they had under act 169 of the Acts of 1931.

This act 169 was a comprehensive act comprising 198 sections, its title being "An Act to Provide for the Organization and Administration of the Public Common Schools," and it undertook to codify the laws on that subject, numerous changes being made in doing so. Section 92 of this act 169 directed the judges of school elections to make returns thereof to the county boards of education, "Showing the number of votes cast for each person voted for as a member of the county board of education, and for each person voted for as a school director," and...