Beresford Sch. Dist. v. Fletcher, 8208

• Decision Date: 24 May 1939
• Docket Number: 8208
• Citation: 287 N.W. 497,66 S.D. 500
• Parties: BERESFORD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., Appellant, v. MURIEL B. FLETCHER, Respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

66 S.D. 500

287 N.W. 497

BERESFORD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., Appellant,

v.

MURIEL B. FLETCHER, Respondent. South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County, SD Hon. John T. Medin, Judge #8208—Reversed Frieberg & Frieberg, Beresford, SD Alan Borne, Parker, SD Attorneys for Appellant. Clifford C. Oden, O.C. Donlev, Elk Point, SD Attorneys for Respondent. Opinion Filed May 24, 1939

ROBERTS, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after hearing of a submitted controversy without action.

Under the provisions of Chapter 99, Laws 1933, amending Sections 284. and 285 of Chapter 138, Laws 1931, any pupil who has successfully completed the eighth grade and holds a common school diploma may continue his school work up to and including the twelfth grade by attending any public high school furnishing a higher course of study than that offered by his home district and the district which lie attends is entitled to payment from the school board of his home district for such instruction. The county superintendent is required to determine from the annual reports on file in his office the actual per capita cost per month of schooling a student in each of the high schools of the county for the current year, and to notify the clerk of the board of education of each school district in the county containing a high school of such amount. The tuition per month is arrived at by dividing tile total cost of high school maintenance by the number of pupils enrolled in the high school and dividing this quotient by the number of months that school was in session.

It is stated in the agreed statement of facts that plaintiff claims that the total cost of high school maintenance includes the items of insurance premiums, interest on bonds and net investments, depreciation, and repairs and replacement of buildings and equipment, and that the predecessor in office of defendant county superintendent in determining the per capita cost per month of schooling a student in the high school of plaintiff district for the school year 1934-35 eliminated these items from her computation. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant determining that plaintiff was not entitled to have these additional items included.

Section 3026, Rev. Code 1919, provides that “parties to a question in difference, which might be the subject of a civil action, may, without action, agree upon a case containing the facts upon which the controversy depends, and present a submission of the same to any court which would have jurisdiction if an action had been brought. But it must appear by affidavit that the controversy is real, and the proceeding in good faith, to determine the rights of the parties. The court shall thereupon hear and determine the case and render judgment thereon, as if...