Board of School Com'rs of Caroline County v. Morris
Decision Date | 24 June 1914 |
Docket Number | 6. |
Citation | 91 A. 718,123 Md. 398 |
Parties | BOARD OF SCHOOL COM'RS OF CAROLINE COUNTY v. MORRIS. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Caroline County; Albert Constable, Wm. H Adkins, and Philemon B. Hopper, Judges.
"To be officially reported."
Application by George W. Morris against the Board of School Commissioners of Caroline County for a writ of mandamus. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the answer, respondent appeals. Order reversed, and petition dismissed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BURKE, THOMAS, URNER, and STOCKBRIDGE JJ.
Reuben Garey and Fred R. Owens, both of Denton, for appellant. Charles F. Harley, of Baltimore (T. Alan Goldsborough, of Denton, on the brief), for appellee.
This is an appeal by the board of county school commissioners of Caroline county from an order of the circuit court of that county directing a writ of mandamus to issue commanding it to open for pupils on September 15, 1913, and keep open throughout the scholastic year, as in previous years and in the usual way, the Boonsboro school, in that county. The order appealed from was passed on October 13, 1913.
The petition for the writ was filed by George W. Morris, of Caroline county. It alleged that the appellant, claiming to act under the power conferred upon it by section 25 of article 77 of the Code, had resolved to consolidate the Boonsboro school with a school in the town of Ridgely in Caroline county, and not to open the Boonsboro school for the scholastic year 1913. The section of the Code above referred to, under which the appellant claimed the power to consolidate the schools, is as follows:
The petition further alleged that the Boonsboro school had been established for more than 20 years, was located in a schoolhouse district established in accordance with article 77, § 27, of the Code, and was the only school in that schoolhouse district; that said school had always kept up its student attendance average well above ten pupils, as required by article 77, § 48, of the Code; that it was quite possible for said Boonsboro school to open on the 15th of September, 1913, when the schools in Caroline county would be opened, and to be kept open during the scholastic year as other schools. It further alleged that the patrons of the Boonsboro school, of which the petitioner was one, were opposed to its abandonment, and that there were no reasons for closing the school and depriving the people of said schoolhouse district of the convenient and satisfactory educational advantages that the said school had furnished for so many years, and would satisfactorily furnish them if kept open; that no provision had been made for closed, warm wagons for conveyance to and from Ridgely school; that the pupils would not be taken up from and put down at their own door, but at various points, in some cases as much as 1 1/2 miles from the home of the pupil; that no provision was made for the arrival of the wagon at the various points designated at any particular time, so that the pupils would have to wait in the weather for the wagon to pass; that it would take from one hour to two hours for the wagon to make the trip one way; that the wagon would not leave Ridgely on the return trip until after 4 o'clock, so that pupils in primary grades would have to wait from half past 2 in order to start home; that the appellant had approved section 124A of chapter 173 of the Laws of Maryland 1912, and appointed attendance officers for its enforcement as provided for by said chapter 173.
The court passed a nisi order upon the petition requiring the appellant to show cause why the writ should not be issued as prayed. The appellant demurred to the petition, and, its demurrer being overruled, it filed an answer. In the view we take of the case it is unnecessary to set forth fully the averments of the answer. It denied many of the allegations of the petition, but averred that the consolidation of the Boonsboro school, which it proposed to make, with a school in the town of Ridgely would furnish the patrons of the former school much greater educational advantages. It averted that:
"It believes that under the law it has the right to do what it proposes to do in the premises, and that it would be greatly to the advantage of the pupils concerned if it be permitted to fully carry out what it proposes to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial