Boyd v. Mitchell

Decision Date30 March 1901
Citation62 S.W. 61,69 Ark. 202
PartiesBOYD v. MITCHELL
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Lincoln Chancery Court, MARCUS L. HAWKINS, Chancellor.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Lincoln chancery court brought by appellees as trustees for the public to compel the school directors of School District No. 45 of said county to open for religious worship a school house alleged in the complaint to have been built by said district and by private subscriptions, upon the agreement and understanding between the directors of said school district and said subscribers that the same should be for school house and be used also for religious services, when school was not being kept therein and to enjoin said school directors from preventing its use for religious services. After hearing the testimony, the court granted the prayer of the complaint, and ordered an injunction as prayed for, from which decree the school directors appealed to this court.

On the 7th of November, 1883, H. C. Stephens executed and delivered to appellees, as trustees, the deed of trust exhibited with their complaint, providing that the tract of land upon which the building is situated should be held by them in trust for the following purposes, to-wit: "That said land be a free burial ground for white people only, and that it is understood and agreed that said ground is to be free for all denominations to build their churches, and the first church built shall have preference; provided said land shall be used by white people only. After these conditions the trustees may build school houses, or erect any other improvement they may think proper; provided that all improvements and expenditures shall be and remain thereon for that purpose for all time to come." At the annual school meeting held in May, 1894 the electors of School District No. 45 voted an appropriation of $ 150 for the purpose of building a school house on the tract of land mentioned in the deed of trust. The directors of said district got permission of the trustees of said land to build a schoolhouse thereon, and the house was built in accordance with said agreement. The school house was paid for by warrants issued by the directors of said district and by subscriptions. The house and furniture cost $ 640.75, of which about $ 150 was paid by subscriptions. It was agreed and understood that the directors were to control said house as a school house, it being clearly set forth in the subscriptions circulated that said house would be used for educational and religious...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Stephens v. Humphrey
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • September 27, 1920
    ...they were transferred. Kirby's Digest, §§ 7637 etc.; 35 Cyc. 1141-2; 31 Neb. 552; 63 Wis. 234; 24 Mo.App. 309; 116 Ind. 11; 9 Am. St. 820; 69 Ark. 202; 89 Id. Abe Collins, for appellees. 1. It was within the sound discretion of the court to grant or withhold the writ. No abuse of discretion......
  • Ford v. Harrison
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1901
  • Lester v. Richardson
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1901
  • Cost v. Shinault
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1914
    ... ... arrangements possible, within the powers conferred, for the ... interest of the district. In the case of Boyd v ... Mitchell, 69 Ark. 202, 62 S.W. 61, this section was ... construed to give school directors the right to prohibit the ... use of a school ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT