Elliott v. Garner

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: HOBSON, J.
• Citation: Elliott v. Garner, 140 Ky. 157, 130 S.W. 997 (Ky. Ct. App. 1910)
• Decision Date: 06 October 1910
• Parties: ELLIOTT et al. v. GARNER et al.

130 S.W. 997

140 Ky. 157

ELLIOTT et al. v. GARNER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 6, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County.

Petition by Q. A. Elliott and others against Walter Garner and others. From a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

W. T Fowler, for appellants.

Hunter Wood & Son and Trimble & Bell, for appellees.

HOBSON J.

An election was held on September 12, 1908, in a district embracing the town of La Fayette, in Christian county, to take the sense of the legal voters on the establishment of a graded school in the district. There were 50 votes for the tax and 49 against it. The vote was canvassed by the proper officers and duly certified. The trustees qualified and levied a tax, and thereupon this suit was bought by Q. A Elliott and other taxpayers of the district to enjoin the trustees from organizing the graded school or levying or collecting the tax. The circuit court dismissed the petition and the plaintiffs appeal.

The first point made is that the boundary of the district as set out in the petition, and in the order of the court, is not sufficiently definite or certain. The boundary is not given by course and distance, but runs from one designated point to another, as from farm to farm, including or excluding a farm as the case might be. There is no uncertainty in the boundary. It is not necessary that the boundary should be given by course and distance. It is sufficient if it is definitely indicated by known natural objects. Another objection is that the district was gerrymandered, and not fairly laid off. Previous to the year 1908 the town of La Fayette was a part of school district No. 29. In the year 1907 a vote was taken in district No. 29 on the question of establishing a graded school, and resulted against the tax. So, when the petition was gotten up for another vote the next year, the whole of district No. 29 was not included in it. The lines of the proposed district were so run as to leave out of it a number of persons who were opposed to the tax. It is said that the lines were run in a very zigzag fashion, and that to establish the district in this way is to sanction an evasion of the statute. There is nothing in the statute requiring the whole of a common school district to be included in a graded school district. The statute necessarily contemplated that parts of districts may be included and other parts left out. The petition must be indorsed by the trustee of each district affected, and it must also be approved by the county superintendent, the intent of the statute being to trust the matter to these officers on the idea that they will not approve petitions where districts are gerrymandered in such a manner as to be prejudicial to the cause of education. The purpose of the statute is to allow the people who so desire to establish a graded school, and the court would be very slow to set up its judgment against the judgment of school officers in a matter of this sort. The persons who were left out were opposed to the tax, and, if the cause of education will not suffer from the shape of the other districts, we do not see that there was anything wrong done by those who wanted the tax voted, when they left out as far as they could those who did not wish to be taxed for a graded school. Those within the district who are complaining here...