Dritt v. Snodgrass

• Citation: 66 Mo. 286
• Parties: DRITT, Plaintiff in Error v. SNODGRASS et al.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1877
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

66 Mo. 286

DRITT, Plaintiff in Error

v.SNODGRASS et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1877.

Error to Moniteau Circuit Court.--HON. GEORGE W. MILLER, Judge.

Rice & Walker with J. L. Smith for plaintiff in error.

1. The privilege granted to the youth of this State by the statute, in obedience to the command of the constition, (Art. 9, Sec. 1,) to receive instruction in our public schools, is a legal right, as much as any vested right in property. Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36.

2. The law may be said to confer upon the school board general powers. They are ministerial officers clothed with discretionary powers partaking of a judicial character; but the law implies that all their acts, their rules and regulations for the government of the school under their charge, must be just and reasonable, and calculated to promote the general objects of the law. Rulison v. Post, 79 Ill. 567; Hodgkins v. Rockport, 105 Mass. 475; Roberts v. Boston, 5 Cush. 198; Sherman v. Charlestown, 8 Cush. 160; Spiller v. Woburn, 12 Allen 127.

3. It is charged in the petition, that the acts complained of were wrongfully, oppressively and maliciously done. The authority is overwhelming that ministerial officers, exercising discretionary powers, or acting in a judicial capacity, are liable for acts unlawfully done with corrupt motives and with malice. Reed v. Conway, 20 Mo. 23; S. C. 26 Mo. 25; Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 How. 130, 131; Jenkens v. Waldron, 11 Johns. 121; Vanderheyden v. Young, 11 Johns. 150; Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 31; Dinsman v. Wilkes, 12 How. 404; Griffin v. Rising, 11 Met. 339; Stephenson v. Hall, 14 Barb. 222; Donahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 394; Schoettgen v. Wilson, 48 Mo. 253; McCutchen v. Windsor, 55 Mo. 153.

4. The plaintiff was not expelled for any act done in the school, or while said school was in session, or at any time when he was under the control of the school officers; but he was expelled because he had attended a social party, at night and after school hours, and this with the consent of his parents with whom he then resided. Upon this point we urge that the said school board and teacher, in expelling him for the cause alleged, acted unlawfully, without any authority, and wholly beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. Morrow v. Wood, 35 Wis. 59; Murphy v. Board of Directors, 30 Iowa 429; Weaver v. Devendorf, 3 Denio 120; Reed v. Conway, 20 Mo. 52.

Draffen & Williams with James E. Hazel, for defendants in error.

1. The board of directors were authorized to make the rule complained of, and for the enforcement thereof they cannot be made liable in damages. Wag. Stat. 1264, § 8; Donahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 376.

The rule is in no manner inconsistent with the law of the land, and its propriety and reasonableness within that limit was confided by the Legislature to the discretion of the school board. It contravenes no law of the State, written or unwritten, and the wisdom of its enforcement is left to the judgment of the board. Courts will not undertake to revise and review the rules adopted for the government of schools by the proper officers. The law has confided that duty to them, and they alone can exercise it. Nor can any one under our system of government suffer long from the enforcement of any regulation which the community believes to be unwise, for by the power of election a change can be made whenever the public are displeased, and in this way any evil complained of should be corrected, and to this tribunal all such questions should be remanded. If, however, it was within the province of the courts to review and pass upon the reasonableness of the rule in question, we insist that it was an eminently wise and proper one, and instead of being a ground for complaint against the defendants, it should be a matter of commendation to them for their interest in the welfare of their scholars.

2. Even if it should be held that defendants had no power to make the rule in question, yet they were acting as quasi judicial officers and for errors of judgment are not liable to an action for damages. True, the petition uses the words “willfully, maliciously and oppressively,” but the facts are stated in detail, and they negative the idea of malice. The rule is set out, and the only complaint is that it was enforced. It is not charged that it was maliciously made, or that it was made for the purpose of excluding plaintiff, but on the contrary, that it was made for the government of the whole school.

HENRY, J.

The cause was commenced and final judgment entered upon demurrer to second amended petition in the circuit court of Moniteau county, Missouri. The record consists of the second amended petition, the separate demurrer of Snodgrass and Redmond, and the separate demurrer of Frederick, and the judgment of the court upon the demurrers.

The petition avers that Joseph F. Dritt is a minor, under 21 years of age-- that John B. Dritt was appointed his next friend by the clerk of the circuit court of said county; hence this suit is prosecuted to the use of Joseph F. Dritt, by his next friend, John B. Dritt. The petition further avers that prior to the accruing of plaintiff's cause of action the town of Tipton, in said county, had been duly incorporated, and a plat thereof filed and duly recorded in the recorder's office of said county; and that prior to the accruing of plaintiff's cause of action, by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri authorizing cities, towns and villages to organize for school purposes, the said town of Tipton was organized as a single school district, and that it has been to this date an acting organization as such; that on, to-wit, the 20th day of January, 1875, and for a long time prior and since that date, the defendants, Isaac Snodgrass and William Redmond, together with four other persons, each of whom, then being citizens and electors within said school district, were duly elected and qualified school directors within said school district, and that they were for the period aforesaid the school directors of said school district; that the said school directors, by virtue of the power and authority in them vested by law, had, prior to the date last aforesaid, established in said school district a school for the education of all the white children residing therein, between the ages of five and twenty-one years, and had employed as the teacher of said school, the defendant, P. A. Frederick, and that the said P. A. Frederick was a legally qualified teacher to teach said school; that for a long period of time prior and subsequent to the date last aforesaid, the said school was in session with the said P. A. Frederick as teacher therein, for the purpose of the instruction and education of the youth aforesaid within said school district, in the branches of education then being taught in said school, to-wit: reading, writing, spelling, orthography, grammar, geography, arithmetic and history; that at the date last aforesaid, and during all the time subsequent thereto to this date, plaintiff has resided in said school district; that he was during all the time aforesaid, and is now, over 5 and under 21 years of age; and that he was then and is now, under the law, entitled to attend said school as a pupil, and be instructed in the various branches of education then and there being taught in said school; that prior to the date aforesaid, and for a long period of time, and up to the said 20th day of January, 1875, he was a regular pupil and scholar in said school, and received instruction in the various branches of education aforesaid; that under the law of the State he had a right to continue in said school as a pupil, and that it was not only the duty of the directors to permit him to attend said school during all the time aforesaid, but to protect him in so doing; that on, to-wit, the 20th day of January, 1875, and while he was a pupil of said school and being instructed in the several branches of learning then being taught therein, the said Isaac Snodgrass and William Redmond, together with the other members of the school board aforesaid, and the said P. A. Frederick, teacher of said school, not regarding their duties aforesaid, wrongfully, illegally, oppressively, willfully and maliciously, and in abuse of their authority as school directors and teacher aforesaid, did expel this plaintiff from said school for the following reason, and none other, to-wit: That the said plaintiff did, previous to the date aforesaid, in the evening, after said school had been dismissed for the day, attend a party composed of the young people of said town, and participate in the amusements thereof; that the said board of directors and teacher of said school had made a rule for the government of said school, prohibiting the scholars from attending such parties during the continuance of said school, and that it was for a violation of this rule that he was expelled; that the said party was made up of invited guests, and that their conduct was strictly innocent, inoffensive and moral, tending only to social culture; that plaintiff was at the time about 17 years of age, and that he attended said party with the permission of his father and mother, with whom he at the time lived; that he had a right to attend said party, and that the defendants had no right or authority to dictate to or control him in the premises, and that the act aforesaid of said defendants, was an abuse of any authority conferred upon them by the laws of this State; that the defendants have in manner and form aforesaid, eve since, to this date, prohibited the plaintiff from attending said school, whereby the plaintiff, by the illegal, unlawful, willful, oppressive and malicious acts of defendants, has been deprived of the benefits of said school, and the instruction aforesaid therein, and asks damages in the sum of $1,000. The petition is signed by Joseph F. Dritt, by Rice and Smith, his attorneys.

The grounds of demurrer are, for Snodgrass and Redmond:

1st....