Chase v. Stephenson

• Citation: 71 Ill. 383,1874 WL 5220
• Parties: JAMES A. CHASE et al.v.DAVID STEPHENSON et al
• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

71 Ill. 383

1874 WL 5220 (Ill.)

JAMES A. CHASE et al.

v.DAVID STEPHENSON et al

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1874.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. THOMAS F. TIPTON, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. GAPEN & EWING, for the appellants.

Messrs. ROWELL & HAMILTON, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, filed by appellees against appellants, in the circuit court of McLean county.

The cause was heard upon bill, answer and exhibits, and a decree rendered that appellants, directors of a certain school district, be perpetually enjoined from occupying or using the building named in the bill for the purpose of carrying on a school for colored children, exclusively, at the expense of the district.

The bill was originally filed for the purpose of restraining appellants from erecting a school house, twelve feet wide and fourteen feet long, for the exclusive purpose of educating four colored children in the district. Before the injunction was served, the building was completed. Appellees then filed a supplemental bill, in which they charged, that, after the completion of the building, appellants employed a teacher, and have kept a school in the building for no other purpose than to teach two colored children in the district; that appellants have given the teacher a warrant on the township treasurer, to pay for her services out of the school funds.

It is further alleged, that appellants will, unless enjoined, continue to occupy the building erected as a school house at the public expense, for no other purpose than to educate two colored children separate from the other children in the district.

It is further alleged, that there is ample room in the school house which was erected three years before, on the same lot, to accommodate all the children in the district.

Several questions of minor importance have been raised by appellants, which it is unnecessary to consider.

The point in the bill in this case is, that appellants, in order to keep some four colored children from attending the same school in the district that is provided for others, erected a small house on the same lot where the other school house stands, and, at the expense of the tax-payers, propose to employ an additional teacher to instruct the colored children, in this small building, separate and apart from the other children in the district; and these facts are substantially admitted by the answer.

The bill is filed by four tax-payers of the district, to prevent the directors from a misappropriation of the public funds, in which, in common with the public, they have a direct interest. It is insisted by appellants...