Bd. of Educ. of Earlville Cmty. High Sch. Dist. No. 380 v. Bd. of Educ. of Nonhigh Sch. Dist. of La Salle Cnty.

• Decision Date: 23 April 1931
• Docket Number: No. 20383.,20383.
• Citation: 175 N.E. 810,343 Ill. 464
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EARLVILLE COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DIST. NO. 380 v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF NONHIGH SCHOOL DIST. OF LA SALLE COUNTY.

343 Ill. 464

175 N.E. 810

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EARLVILLE COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DIST. NO. 380

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF NONHIGH SCHOOL DIST. OF LA SALLE COUNTY.

No. 20383.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 23, 1931.

Suit by the Board of Education of Earlville Community High School District No. 380 against the Board of Education of Non-High School District of La Salle County. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Court (257 Ill. App. 200), and defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Second District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, La Salle County; Frank H. Hayes, Judge.

Hibbs & Pool, of Ottawa, for appellant.

Wiley & Wiley, of Ottawa, for appellee.

DE YOUNG, J.

The board of education of Earlville community high school district No. 380, in La Salle county, brought suit in assumpsit in the circuit court of that county against the board of education of the non-high school district of La Salle county, and, upon a trial without a jury, recovered judgment for $1,158.70 and costs. The defendant prosecuted an appeal to the Appellate Court for the Second district, and that court affirmed the judgment. 257 Ill. App. 200. A certificate of importance was granted by the Appellate Court, and the defendant has taken a further appeal to this court.

The suit was instituted to recover a portion, alleged as remaining unpaid, of the tuition of pupils who attended the Earlville Community High School but resided in the non-high school district of La Salle county during the school years 1925-1926 and 1926-1927. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Pursuant to the circuit court's order, based upon the defendant's motion, the plaintiff filed a bill of particulars. From this bill it appears that, for the school year 1925-1926, the plaintiff's total expenditures amounted to $14,405; that one of the items included in this total was ‘Text books, stationery and supplies, $1,149’; that the average number of pupils, including twelve residing in the defendant's district, was 115, making the per capita cost $125.26; that the plaintiff's claim for tuition for the year 1925-1926 amounted to $1336.10, of which the defendant had paid $1,173, leaving an indebtedness still owing the plaintiff for the particular year, of $163.10. The bill of particulars further shows that for the school year 1926-1927, the plaintiff's total expenditures aggregated $23,079; that among the items included in this total were ‘Text books, stationery and supplies, $1,193; fuel, water, light and janitor's supplies, $1,463; maintenance and repairs, $1,330; depreciation and use of school building, $3,500; libraries and promotion of health, $469, and movable equipment and apparatus not fastened to building, $2,194.69’; that the average number of pupils, including thirteen, residing in the defendant's district, was 110, making the per capita tax cost $209.80; that the plaintiff's claim for tuition for the year 1926-1927 amounted to $2,727.40, of which the defendant had paid $1,430, leaving an indebtedness from the defendant to the plaintiff, for the year, of $1,297.40.

The evidence discloses that, of the items set forth in the bill of particulars, text-books, stationery, and supplies, fuel, water, light, and janitor's supplies, libraries and promotion of health and movable equipment and apparatus not fastened to building include certain things which have a usable value beyond the period of one year; that the item for maintenance and repairs includes the premium, at the annual rate, for insurance on the school building, although the appellee, by the payment in advance of a sum equal to four annual premiums, obtained a policy for a five-year term; and that the use and depreciation of the school building were equal, each constituting one-half of the sum charged therefor in the bill of particulars.

The appellant's contentions for a reversal of the judgment are, first, that articles having a usable value for a period in excess of one year partake of the nature of permanent equipment, and for that reason their cost cannot be included in the computation of the per capita cost of conducting and maintaining the high school for any particular year; second, that the appellant is only required to pay its proportionate share of the money actually expended to obtain insurance during the year for which the computation is made; and, third, that the appellee is not entitled to include in that computation both a charge for the use and the depreciation of the school building.

Section 96 of the act entitled ‘An act to establish and maintain a system of free schools,’ as it read prior to July 1, 1927 (Cahill's Rev. St. 1925, p. 2169; Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, p. 2319), provided that: ‘Any eighth grade graduate residing in a non-high school district may attend any recognized two, three or four year high school, and his tuition shall be paid by...