Bryant v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Colquitt County
| Decision Date | 13 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3775.) |
| Parties | BRYANT et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COLQUITT COUNTY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Colquitt County; W. E. Thomas, Judge.
Mandamus by J. M. Bryant and another against the Board of Education of Colquitt County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed.
J. M. Bryant and E. W. Snipes, on January 9, 1923, filed their petition for mandamus against the county board of education of Colquitt county, and made this case: Petitioners are residents and taxpayers of said county and residents and citizens of the fourth consolidated school district thereof. On November 7, 1922, the defendant ordered an election to be held in said district, at Funston, on November 24, 1922, for the purpose of electing trustees for said district to take the places of three trustees whose terms of office had expired. After notice was given as prescribed by defendant, said election was held on November 24. 1922, at the time, place, and in the manner prescribed by defendant. Petitioners and W. J. Perkins were elected as such trustees, and notice of their election was filed by the election managers with the county school superintendent who forwarded the same to the defendant for its approval on the first Tuesday in December, 1922. Defendant took no action on said election on said date, but had its meeting on the first Tuesday in January, 1923, commissioned Perkins as trustee after having con firmed his election, but refused to confirm the election of petitioners, though demand was made upon it to do so, and it still refuses to confirm the election of petitioners and properly commission them. Petitioners are intelligent citizens of good moral character, and are known to be earnest supporters of public education, and are fully qualified to fill the position of trustee of said district. In refusing to confirm their election and commission them, defendant grossly abused its discretion. Petitioners state on information and belief that defendant confirmed the election of said Perkins, and refused to confirm their election, because said Perkins agreed to assume an individual obligation to pay an indebtedness contracted by former trustees in behalf of said district, whereas petitioners refused to do so. About four years ago the trustees of said district contracted an obligation of about $7,000 for said district, and signed notes therefor in their individual capacity, assuming personal and individual liability for its payment. Subsequently two trustees were elected to fill the office of two trustees whose terms of office had expired, and said newly elected trustees were required to assume, and did assume, individual liability for the payment of said indebtedness, releasing therefrom said two trustees whose terms had expired. In 1921 the defendant ordered an election to fill the offices of two trustees whose terms had expired, and their successors were duly elected, and the result of the election submitted to the defendant in the manner required by law; but the trustees so elected refused to assume personal liability on the indebtedness mentioned, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial