Board of School Com'rs of Anne Arundel County v. Henkel

• Decision Date: 09 January 1912
• Citation: 83 A. 89,117 Md. 97
• Parties: BOARD OF SCHOOL COM'RS OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY v. HENKEL et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

83 A. 89

117 Md. 97

BOARD OF SCHOOL COM'RS OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY v. HENKEL et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 9, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; Jas. R. Brashears Judge.

Mandamus by Louis B. Henkel and others against the Board of School Commissioners of Anne Arundel County.Mandamus directed to issue, and defendant appeals.Cause remanded without affirming or reversing the order appealed from, that order might be passed in conformity with opinion.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, BURKE, PATTISONURNER, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.

Clayton Purnell, for appellant.Robert Moss, for appellees.

PATTISON J.

The appellees, citizens and taxpayers of Anne Arundel county Md., filed their petition in the circuit court for that county asking that a writ of mandamus be issued, directed to the board of county school commissioners of Anne Arundel county, commanding them to appoint, pursuant to chapter 275 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, passed at its January session, 1896, and in accordance with the provisions thereof, six district trustees for the White public school in the city of Annapolis mentioned in the petition.The petition alleged that each of the six trustees of said school had resigned, and that a vacancy existed in each of said offices.The petition further alleges that the board of county school commissioners, ignoring the provisions of chapter 275 of the Acts of 1896, appointed as trustees for said school three men, "under the pretense that said act of assembly is no longer in force, and that the same has been repealed."The school commissioners in their answer to the petition denied the existence of the vacancies in the board, as alleged in the petition, and alleged "that said board is composed of three persons, residents of the school district, as provided in section 7 of article 77 of the Code of Public General Laws, title 'Public Education."'The answer further alleges "that sections 16,17, and18 of chapter 275 of the Acts of 1896 are inoperative and no longer in force, in that the provisions thereof are repealed by chapter 584 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland passed in 1904, which," as the answer alleges, "was a general scheme of legislation for the whole state, governing and controlling all public school officers, and providing for the conduct and management of all the public schools of the state."The answer further alleges that by section 11 of chapter 584 of the Acts of 1904 the power is conferred upon the State Board of Education to hear and determine all controversies "between those entrusted with the administration of our system of education and those involving the proper administration of the public school system," and that in so acting its power is summary and exclusive and its decision final; and it further alleges that the controversy in this case was referred to the State Board of Education for its decision, and that it decided adversely to the contention of the petitioners, "and advised that the respondents should take charge of the Annapolis school and proceed to conduct it as other schools of the same class are required to be conducted, under the provisions of the general law applicable to the entire state."This decision of the State Board of Education, the answer alleges, was final, and thus the circuit court for Anne Arundel county was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues presented by the petition and answer.In the record we find all agreement between the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant, whereby "it is agreed in this case that the office of board of district school trustees for the White public school in the city of Annapolis is vacant, and that, if the provisions of chapter 275 of the Acts of 1896 are operative and in force, the said board of district school trustees is composed of six members, but, if said Act of 1896 has been repealed by chapter 584 of the Acts of 1904 and subsequent legislation, said board of district school trustees is composed of three members, and the question of which act is in force is one of the questions submitted to the court for its decision in the above case."

There are but two questions presented by this appeal:

(1) Did the circuit court for Anne Arundel county have jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues presented by the petition and answer?

(2) Were sections 16,17, and18 of chapter 275 of the Acts of 1896 repealed by chapter 584 of the Acts of 1904, as claimed by the appellant?

We will consider these questions in the order in which they are presented.

Section 11 of chapter 584 of the Acts of 1904, codified as section 11 of article 77 of the Code of Public General Laws of 1904, provides that "the State Board of Education shall, to the best of their ability, cause the provisions of this article to be carried into effect," and "they shall explain the true intent and meaning of the law and they shall decide, without expense to the parties concerned, all controversies and disputes that arise under it, and their decision shall be final."It is under this provision of the law that the appellant contends that the power and jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the State Board of Education to hear and determine the issues presented by the petition and answer in this case, and that the circuit court for Anne Arundel county was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the same.It is contended by the appellees that the vacancies should be filled by the appointment of six persons as trustees, three men and three women, to be made under and by virtue of chapter 275 of the Acts of 1896 with the full powers therein conferred upon them; while it is contended by the appellant that sections 16,17, and18 of chapter 275 of the Acts of 1896 have been repealed by chapter 584 of the Acts of 1904, and are no longer operative, and that the vacancies should be filled by the appointment of but three persons as trustees, to be made under the last-named statute, with only the limited powers therein conferred upon them.

The appellant, in support of its contention that this question cannot be heard and determined by the circuit court for Anne Arundel county, relies upon the case of Wiley et al., Trustees, v. Board of School Commissioners of Allegany County,51 Md. 401, Shober v. Cochrane,53 Md. 545, andUnderwood v. School Board,103 Md. 181, 63 A. 221.In the first of these cases(Wiley et al., Trustees, v. Board of School Commissioners of Allegany County)a bill was filed praying for an injunction to restrain the board of county school commissioners of Allegany county from converting a public schoolhouse, which was at the time of the filing of the bill used for primary district school purposes, under the supervision of the complainants as trustees, to the use and purposes of a high school.The issue there presented was held to fall within the scope of the power conferred by section 11 of article 77 on the state board to decide all disputes arising under that article, and, as the power was comprehensive enough to deal with the issue in the case, it was held that the court of equity should not interfere with its exercise.In the second case (Shober v. Cochrane) Shober applied for a writ of mandamus to compel Cochrane not to interfere with or prevent him from discharging his duties as examiner and secretary and treasurer of the board of school commissioners of Allegany county and from receiving the emoluments thereof, and to yield up said office to the petitioner.In that case the board of school commissioners, appointed by the circuit court for Allegany county, at the time of its organization, January 1, 1879, elected J. W. S. Cochrane examiner and secretary and treasurer of the board.He entered upon the duties of the office and continued to serve until the 6th day of January, 1880, regularly performing the duties of his office.In January, 1880, after the expiration of the term for which said board of school commissioners had been appointed, and while holding over under their original appointment, the circuit court, in which the power of appointment was at that time lodged, having failed to appoint their successors, they elected Shober as examiner and secretary and treasurer.This appointment resulted in a controversy and the whole controversy was submitted to the State Board of Education, before whom all parties concerned, including the school commissioners, appeared and were heard, and the State Board adjudged and determined in favor of Cochrane.It was then that Shober applied for the writ of mandamus, which was refused him, and upon appeal this court filed a per curiam order affirming the order of the circuit court, upon the ground that "the power to decide the matter in dispute was vested in the State Board of Education, and its decision thereon was final and conclusive."

In the case of Duer v. Dashiell,91 Md. 671, 47 A. 1040, in which a mandamus was asked for requiring the appellant therein, who had been the secretary, treasurer, and examiner of the former board of school commissioners, to deliver the books and papers of the office to the appellee who was elected to the same office by the new board, this court, in speaking of the two cases just cited, said: "Both Wiley's and Shober's Cases were disputes between functionaries of the department of public education over which it was the purpose of section 11 of article 77 of the Code to give the State Board of Education jurisdiction.Neither of these cases involved, as the one before us does the important legal question of the effect of an act of the Legislature repealing the law under which a board of school commissioners were appointed upon the tenure of office of a subordinate official...