Brantley v. Board of Supervisors

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PACK, J.
• Citation: Brantley v. Board of Supervisors, 119 So. 185, 152 Miss. 241 (Miss. 1928)
• Decision Date: 03 December 1928
• Docket Number: 27509
• Parties: BRANTLEY v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. [*]

119 So. 185

152 Miss. 241

BRANTLEY v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. ^[*]

No. 27509

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 3, 1928

Division B

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Consolidated district bond election held at private office was void, though only schoolhouse in district was for temporary use (Hemingway's Code 1927 section 8741).

Where election on bond issue for consolidated school district was held at a private office rather than in the schoolhouse, as required by Hemingway's Code 1927, section 8741 (Laws 1924, chapter 283), the election was void, though only schoolhouse in district at time of election was merely improvised for temporary use.

HON GREEK L. RIC, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of De Soto county., HON. GREEK L. RICE, Judge.

Proceeding by the board of supervisors for the issuance of bonds by the Lake Cormorant consolidated school district, wherein J. C. Brantley filed a protest. Judgment affirming the order of the board of supervisors, authorizing the issuance of the bonds, and objector appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Judgment reversed and remanded.

Logan & Barbee, for appellant.

Appellants contend that there is and was on the day of the election complained of a "schoolhouse of the district" and that the election complained of should have been held in said schoolhouse. Barrett et al. v. Cedar Hill Consolidated School District, 85 So. 125; Board of Supervisors of Stone County v. O'Neal, 93 So. 483; Monroe County, to use of Splunge Consolidated School District, v. Minga. et al., 90 So. 443.

Appellees admit by the evidence of the trustees that the district was created several months prior to the election complained of and that the school was being taught at the time of the election in a building on the site or plot of ground originally designated by the trustees of the school board and in a building in which the school had been taught prior to the burning of the new school building, but they contend that because the said district did not own the building at the time of the election it was not the "schoolhouse of the district."

We respectfully insist that it was the "schoolhouse of the district." And it made no difference whether the district had the fee-simple title to the house and land on which it stood for the purpose of teaching the school, it belonged to the district until the building then under construction was completed. Carter v. Board of Supervisors of Chickasaw County, 95 So. 306.

Was there, legally, a schoolhouse of the Lake Cormorant consolidated school district?

There are not cases in Mississippi decisive of this question, it is really a question of fact whether there was a schoolhouse of the district where the election should have been held. Our contention is that the decision of the trustees of the district, acting in good faith, and designating the place where the election should be held, is final, unless it is clearly shown, and there is no room for doubt, that there was a schoolhouse of the consolidated school district. Our further contention is that the board of supervisors, who ordered the election, and the election commissioner, who gave notice of the election, necessarily found that there was no schoolhouse of the district. And that the election commissioners who certified the returns of the election, and the board of supervisors who accepted the returns, again necessarily found that there was no schoolhouse of the district.

Had the election notice merely stated that the election would be held at the schoolhouse of the district; then appellant could, in all good faith, have contended that there was no schoolhouse of the district, that the schoolhouse which belonged to the district had burned, and that a new schoolhouse was now in the process of construction, and that the place where school was being temporarily taught at the time of election was not even owned by the school district, or the county.

Appellants cite Carter v. Board of Supervisors, 95 So. 306. In that case there was no schoolhouse of the consolidated school district. An election had been called to vote on a bond issue for the district, and the trustees of the district had designated the Van Vleet rural schoolhouse for the place of holding the election. Before the election was held the Van Vleet rural schoolhouse was burned and school was being taught at another house. The election was held however at the place where the school was being taught and the court said: "Whether legally or not, it is certainly the de facto Van Vleet schoolhouse." The facts in that cease have no application to this case. It might be said that the place where school was being temporarily taught at the time of the election complained of, was the school of the district, but it could not be said that it was the schoolhouse, or even the de facto schoolhouse of the district.

Argued orally by R. F. B. Logan, for appellant, and Paul Bowdre, for appellee.

OPINION

PACK, J.

This appeal involves the legality of an election on a bond issue in the Lake Cormorant consolidated school district. A new school building had been erected, but was destroyed by fire after it had...