Bullock v. Cooley

• Decision Date: 25 February 1919
• Citation: 225 N.Y. 566,122 N.E. 630
• Parties: BULLOCK v. COOLEY, District Superintendent, et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

225 N.Y. 566

122 N.E. 630

BULLOCK

v.COOLEY, District Superintendent, et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 25, 1919.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Action by George Bullock against James S. Cooley, as District Superintendent of the First Supervisory District of Nassau County, the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9 of the Town of Oyster Bay, John F. Bermingham and others, as members of and constituting said Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9 of the Town of Oyster Bay, and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (183 App. Div. 529,171 N. Y. Supp. 105), reversing on the law and facts the judgment of the Special Term (100 Misc. Rep. 505,166 N. Y. Supp. 1), which dismissed the complaint upon the merits, the named defendants appeal. Judgment of Appellate Division reversed, and of Special Term affirmed.

William D. Guthrie, of New York City, for appellants.

Frank B. Gilbert, of Albany, for State Education Department.

William N. Dykman, for respondent.

CHASE, J.

This action is brought by a taxpayer of former school district No. 7 of the town of Oyster Bay, in the county of Nassau, to restrain the defendants from carrying out, perfecting, or in any way enforcing an order of the district superintendent of the first supervisory district of Nassau county, comprising the towns of Oyster Bay and North Hempstead, by which said school district No. 7 and also school district No. 10 of said town of Oyster Bay were dissolved, and the territory thereof united to union free school district No. 9 of said town. So far as appears before us, all persons in any way interested in said districts or either of them assent to and acquiesce in carrying out said order, except certain taxpayers of District No.

7. The order was made pursuant to the authority of section 129 of the Education Law (Consol. Laws, c. 16), which is as follows:

‘Any school commissioner [now district superintendent] may dissolve one or more districts, and may from such territory form a new district; he may also unite such territory or a portion thereof to any adjoining school district, except a union free school district whose boundaries are coterminous with the boundaries of an incorporated village or city.’

The boundaries of school district No. 9 are not coterminous with the boundaries of an incorporated village or city. The plaintiff challenges the jurisdiction of the district superintendent to make the order, the enforcement of which he seeks to prevent because:

1. It is alleged that consent was not obtained for the dissolution of school district No. 7 and its annexation to union free school district No. 9.

[1] No consent is required for the dissolution, reformation and consolidation of districts pursuant to section 129 of the Education Law that we have quoted. A distinction is made in the Education Law between an alteration of the boundaries of a school district (Education Law, §§ 123-128) and the dissolution, reformation, and consolidation of districts (Education Law, § [225 N.Y. 571]129). The distinction existed in the statute of 1894 (chapter 556), as amended by chapter 264 of the Laws of 1896. It was frequently recognized and proclaimed by the department of education through the superintendent of public instruction prior to the consolidation of the Education Law in 1909. Matter of Dwyer, University of the State of New York, Judicial Decisions 1822-1913, page 699; Matter of Jones, Id. 709; Matter of Stryker, Id. 735.

[2] The Legislature, with knowledge of the decisions of the department of education, when it consolidated the School and Education Laws, continued the distinction between the alteration and the dissolution of a school district. The statutes have been practically construed as contended for by the appellants. Much weight should be given to the practical construction of a statute by the officers whose duty it is to enforce it. Kings County Lighting Co. v. City of New York, 176 App. Div. 175,162 N. Y. Supp. 581;City of New York v. N. Y. City Ry. Co., 193 N. Y. 543, 86 N. E. 565;Grimmer v. Tenement House Dept. N. Y., 205 N. Y. 549, 98 N. E. 332;People ex rel. Williams v. Dayton, 55 N. Y. 367.

The doubt expressed in 1905 in Matter of Jones, supra, in regard to annexing the territory of a dissolved district to a union free school district without the consent of the school authorities of such district apparently led to the change in section 9 of title 6 of chapter 556 of the Laws of 1894, as amended by chapter 264 of the Laws of 1896, when in section 27 of the Education Law (Laws of 1909, c. 21) the words ‘common or union free school’ were inserted for the purpose, as stated in a note of the consolidators, of making the section conform to the usage of the department of education. Section 129 of the Education Law, that we have quoted, has been amended to authorize uniting the territory or a part thereof of a dissolved district to any adjoining school district, without exception or limitation other than that it cannot be united to the territory of a union free school district whose boundaries are coterminous with the boundaries of an incorporated village or city.

2. It is alleged that the territory of school district No. 7 does not adjoin school district No. 9.

The territory of the state of New York as it extends easterly over Long Island is bounded on the north by the territory of the state of Connecticut. The boundary line between the states is specifically stated in chapter 57 of the Consolidated Laws (State Law, § 2). The county of Nassau and the town of Oyster Bay, as a part of that county, each include a part of the northern shore of Long Island. In Mahler v. Norwich & N. Y. Transportation Co., 35 N. Y. 352, 359, this court say:

‘We think there is no force in the suggestion, that, if the state owns to the center of the sound, a considerable pary of our domain is not partitioned into counties and towns. Even if the statute, in declaring the bounds of the counties bordering on the sound, had limited them, in terms, to the line of low-water mark, it would indicate nothing but the mere fact that the Legislature deemed their extension to the exterior water line of the state a matter of no practical importance; but in the absence of any such limitation, we are clearly of the opinion expressed by this court on a former occasion, that the respective counties and towns, which are bounded generally on the sound, comprehend within their limits the waters between their respective shores and the water line of the state. This is the usual and reasonable rule in the political apportionment of territory, for the purpose of fixing the limits of civil and criminal jurisdiction.’

See People v. Hulse, 3 Hill, 309;Matter of United Building Material Co., 137 App. Div. 893,121 N. Y. Supp. 1150.

Oyster Bay, as a part of Long Island Sound, is a landlock harbor. It opens into Cold Spring harbor on the east, between Center Island and a part of the main land known as Cove Neck. The opening is about half a mile wide. That part of the town of Oyster Bay surrounding Oyster Bay harbor in 1916 was divided into school districts. Union free school districts No. 9 included the territory south and west of the harbor. School district No. 10 included Cove Neck and is east of the harbor. School district No. 6 lies northwest of the harbor and extends west along the northerly shore of Long Island. School district No. 7 consists of Center Island, and extends north from the opening of the harbor and is east of a part of the harbor itself. It also extends southwesterly into and through the harbor until it comes within about one-half mile or perhaps a little more of Oyster Bay village, in union free school district No. 9. The shore lines of the harbor along districts Nos. 7 and 9 are separated by the waters of the harbor which are from one-half mile to a mile or a little more in width. There is no land connection between district No. 7 and district No. 9 except over a narrow causeway at the northwesterly corner of the island leading to school district No. 6 along the southerly shore of Long Island Sound and from which a highway leads to and through district No. 9.

Under the Consolidated School Law of 1864 (Laws of 1864, c. 555, tit. 6, § 1) it was the duty of each school commissioner to divide so far as practicable the territory within his district into a convenient number of school districts, and by section 120 of the Education Law all school districts organized either by special laws or under the provisions of a general law are continued and may be altered or dissolved as therein provided.

[3] The Education Law plainly contemplates jurisdiction for educational purposes as therein provided over all of the territory of the state. Even if the boundaries of the districts mentioned as the same are filed in the town clerk's office of the town of Oyster Bay are described as along the waters of Oyster Bay harbor, the lands under such waters, a part of the town of Oyster Bay, should for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the district superintendent in the matter now before us be deemed a part of the school districts. It is not uncommon to treat school districts as adjoining for school purposes when they are divided by creeks or other natural boundaries, or by direct reference to the sides of highways or canals. The purpose of the statute in confining the authority to unite districts or parts thereof to such as are adjoining, was to prevent districts being united for school purposes when intervening territory consisting of some other district or districts, or part or parts thereof, wholly separate and divide the districts or parts thereof sought to be united.

No school has been maintained on Center Island since 1912. It is asserted that there are but six or seven children of school age residing in the district. Since 1912 contracts have been made from year to year by district No. 7 with union...