Bissell v. Davison
| Decision Date | 01 December 1894 |
| Citation | 65 Conn. 183,32 A. 348 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BISSELL v. DAVISON et al. |
Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; Shumway, Judge.
Application by Henry Blssell for a writ of mandamus against Edward H. Davison and others, school committee of the town of New Britain. A demurrer to respondents' return was overruled, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Joseph L. Barbour and George W. Andrew, for appellant.
Frank L. Hungerford and Philip J. Markley, for appellees.
On the 10th of March, 1894, the school committee of the town of New Britain passed the following vote: Under the provisions of this vote, the plaintiff's minor son, a pupil in the high school of New Britain, was excluded from said school, solely because he refused and neglected to be vaccinated. Upon the application of the plaintiff, the superior court issued an alternative writ of mandamus to the school committee of New Britain, in substance, requiring them to admit said minor as a pupil in the high school, or to show cause to the contrary to said court. In their return to this writ the school committee gave, in substance, as their reasons for excluding said minor from the high school, the fact of the existence of said vote, and the further fact that the minor neglected and refused to comply with its terms. To this return the plaintiff demurred upon the ground—First, that the vote was not warranted by law; second, because it is in violation of the constitution of this state; and, third, because it is in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. The superior court held the return to be sufficient, and overruled the demurrer, and the action of the court in so doing is the sole error assigned on this appeal.
Under the provisions of sections 2137 and 2197 of the General Statutes, the school committee of New Britain is invested with the power to require that every child shall be vaccinated, before being permitted to attend the public schools. The vote in question was passed in pursuance of the power so given. It is one way of exercising that power, and, so far as we can now see, it was an unobjectionable way of exercising it If, then, the statute conferring this power upon the committee is a valid one, it would seem that the vote was warranted by law. But the plaintiff urges that the vote was not warranted by law, because, at the time it was passed, "it does not appear that there was a single case of smallpox in the town of New Britain, nor any indication that an epidemic of that disease was likely to present itself." This claim assumes that the power in question cannot be exercised by the school committee unless at the time of its exercise one or more cases of smallpox exist in town, or an epidemic of the disease is reasonably to be apprehended. But the statute conferring the power has imposed no such conditions upon its exercise, and we see no good reasons why any such conditions should be Implied. We think the vote was clearly warranted by law, provided the statute in question is a valid one, which is the next point to be considered.
This proceeding may be regarded either as one brought to vindicate some right of the plaintiff, or some right of his minor son. The right, as it is called, to attend the public school, is one belonging to the minor, and not to the plaintiff, and should properly be vindicated in a proceeding brought by or on behalf of the minor. Stephenson v. Hall, 14 Barb. 222; Spear v. Cummings, 23 Pick. 224; Donahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 376. On the other hand, the plaintiff is the natural guardian of the minor, charged by law with the duty of sending him to school, and, to enable him to perform that duty, is, perhaps, entitled, on his own behalf, to bring a proceeding of this kind. People v. Board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheff v. O'Neill
...year, reveal that 93.4 percent of Hartford's students are from minority racial or ethnic groups. 5 (1909); see also Bissell v. Davison, 65 Conn. 183, 191, 32 A. 348 (1894). This segregation can have a devastating impact on a minority student's education. The United States Supreme Court reco......
-
Horton v. Meskill
...but also and chiefly because it is one of great public necessity for the protection and welfare of the State itself." Bissell v. Davison, 65 Conn. 183, 191, 32 A. 348, 349. Finally, it should be observed that the issues raised and pressed on this appeal are directed toward the right of the ......
-
Connecticut Coalition for Justice v. Rell
...has for centuries recognized it as her right and duty to provide for the proper education of the young"); see also Bissell v. Davison, 65 Conn. 183, 191, 32 A. 348 (1894) (describing education as duty "assumed by the state ... chiefly because it is one of great public necessity for the prot......
-
Rhea v. Board of Education of Devils Lake Special School District
... ... 223, 105 N.E. 670, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 552; Duffield v ... Williamsport School Dist. 162 Pa. 476, 25 L.R.A. 152, 29 ... A. 742; Bissell v. Davison, 65 Conn. 183, 29 L.R.A ... 251, 32 A. 348; Com. v. Pear, 183 Mass. 242, 67 ... L.R.A. 935, 66 N.E. 719; Stull v. Reber, 215 Pa ... ...
-
A Compelling Interest? Using Old Conceptions of Public Health Law to Challenge the Affordable Care Act's Contraceptive Mandate
...the right to compel vaccination is based on necessity, and outbreak nearby towns justified compelling vaccinations); Bissel v. Davison, 32 A. 348, 349-50 (Conn. 1894) (permitting public schools to require vaccination as a prerequisite for admission).108. See GOSTIN, POWER, supra note 7, at ......
-
Functions of Government in Educational Control
...N.W. 289; Miller v. Kornset al., 107 Ohio St. 287, 140 N.E. 773; Statev. McCaffrey, 69 Vt. 85, 37 Atl. 234.18 Bissell v. Davidson et al., 65 Conn. 183,32 Atl. 348, 29 L.R.A. 251.19 Miller v. Korns et al., 107 Ohio St. 287,140 N.E. 773.20 Herold v. Parish Board of School Direc-tors et al., 1......