Bridgehampton Sch. Dist. No. 2, Fractional v. Superintendent of Pub. Instruction

• Decision Date: 28 February 1949
• Docket Number: No. 47.,47.
• Citation: 36 N.W.2d 166,323 Mich. 615
• Parties: BRIDGEHAMPTON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2, FRACTIONAL, OF CARSONVILLE, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (BLACK, Atty. Gen., Intervenor).
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

323 Mich. 615

36 N.W.2d 166

BRIDGEHAMPTON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2, FRACTIONAL, OF CARSONVILLE,

v.SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (BLACK, Atty. Gen., Intervenor).

No. 47.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 28, 1949.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sanilac County; Xenophon A. Boomhower, judge.

Action by the Bridgehampton School District No. 2, Fractional, of Carsonville, Michigan, against the Superintendent of Public Instruction, wherein Eugene F. Black, Attorney General, intervened, by way of an appeal from a ruling of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. From an order denying a motion to dismiss, the Attorney General appeals.

Reversed and motion granted.

Before the Entire Bench.

Paterson & Paterson, of Sandusky, for appellee.

Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., of Lansing, Elbern Parsons, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen. and Caroline W. Thrun, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

NORTH, Justice.

This appeal presents the question of the proper construction of section 9, chapter 5, part 1, of the Michigan school code, Act No. 319, Pub. Acts 1927, 2 Comp.Laws 1929, § 7180, Stat.Ann. § 15.100. This section 9 reads:

‘Whenever the county commissioner of schools is presented with a petition or petitions requesting him to submit to the legal school electors the question of establishing a rural agricultural school, he shall refer to the superintendent of public instruction for his opinion as to the advisability of uniting all of said territory into one (1) rural agriculatural school district. The superintendent of public instruction shall have authority to confirm the action of the several contiguous rural districts in forming the proposed rural agricultural school, or he may require that one (1) or more of such districts be not included in the group to form a rural agricultural school. His action in the matter shall be final.’

The instant controversy is primarily focused on the last sentence above quoted. Appellant takes the position that the action or determination of the superintendent of public instruction in the matter here involved is final. On the contrary plaintiff contends such action or determination is subject to judicial review.

The superintendent of schools in Sanilac county by letter advised the defendant superintendent of public instruction that petitions signed by the statutory percentage of school electors in 13 school districts in Sanilac county seeking an election as to consolidation such districts into one agricultural school district had been filed with the county superintendent, and he (as provided in the above-cited statute) requested the opinion of the superintendent of public instruction ‘as to the advisability of uniting all of said territory into one (1) rural agricultural school district.’ In the first instance reply to the superintendent's letter and request was made by a letter signed by the deputy superintendent of public instruction, but subsequently this reply by the deputy was ratified and adopted by the superintendent of public instruction. Except as indicated, we quote in full this letter addressed to the county superintendent:

‘I received your letter of December 1, 1947 informing me that you had been presented with petitions asking for the holding of an election to form a rural agricultural school district from the following districts: (specifically designated) * * *.

‘The proposal has now been investigated by analysis of figures and facts, and inspection of the Carsonville (probable location of new school) School facilities, and the holding of a hearing at the Sanilac County courthouse at which all interested persons were given an opportunity to present their views on the issue.

‘In such matters there devolves on the Superintendent of Public Instruction the necessity of determining two questions. One is whether the proposed reorganization will bring together into the school administrative unit enough boys and girls to enable the district to offer the kind of educational program that Michigan parents have the right to expect of their children, and in which the community may take justifiable pride. The other is whether the financial and other material elements in the proposed organization will constitute a firm foundation upon which to create and sustain such a program.

‘I appreciate the very great interest which so many of the citizens of Sanilac County have manifested in this matter, and the efforts that have been applied to bring the issue to its present stage. And so it is with regret that I find that both questions must be answered in the negative.

‘I therefore disapprove the proposed reorganization of the above named school district as a rural agricultural school district.

‘Yours sincerely,

‘Eugene B. Elliott,

‘Superintendent

‘Lee M. Thurston,

‘Deputy Superintendent.’

Promptly after receipt of the above letter plaintiff, one of the 13 school districts, filed in the circuit court in chancery of Sanilac county the bill of complaint herein. The attorney general appeared in the case and made a motion to dismiss. The circuit judge heard and denied the motion. Leave having been granted the attorney general has appealed. The bill of complaint is labeled ‘Appeal from the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Michigan.’ Prior to the motion to dismiss the superintendent of public instruction made and filed a ‘Return on Appeal.’ After stating in its bill of complaint that its ‘appeal’ was brought under Act No. 21, Pub. Acts 1947, plaintiff alleged:

‘7. That the disapproval of the defendant of this petition for the forming of such a school district deprives the electors of the various school districts from voting upon the subject and thereby deprives them of their constitutional right to have a voice in local government. * * *

‘11. The ruling of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in this matter is not based upon the rights of the interested people, but is arbitrary and oppressive in its nature and will work out a great hardship. * * *

‘13. The ruling appealed from herein was not supported by evidence, was made without a proper...