Gibson v. Mabrey

• Decision Date: 30 June 1905
• Parties: GIBSON ET AL. v. MABREY ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

40 So. 297

145 Ala. 112

GIBSON ET AL. v. MABREY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1905

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1906.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Marshall County; W. H. Simpson Chancellor.

"To be officially reported."

Bill by G. A. Gibson and others against Jay Mabrey and others. From the decree, complainants appeal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rendered.

J. A Lusk, for appellants.

E. O McCord and Billbro, Inzer & Stephens, for appellees.

SIMPSON J.

This was a bill filed by G. A. Gibson, J. E. Buckalew, and J. B Geiger, who allege that they are the district trustees for School District No. 43, in Marshall county, Ala., and are also resident citizens of said school district, taxpayers therein, and patrons of the public schools in said district, having children therein within the school age, against Jay Mabrey, as county superintendent of education and as chief executive officer of the county board of education of said county, and Cicero P. Bales, J. M. McCamey, Virgil Dickson, and F. E. Oliver, the individual members composing said board, and Walter Amos. The redistricting board, provided for by Acts 1903, p. 290, § 2, divided said county into school districts, and in the district in question located one schoolhouse. The district trustees, provided for by section 6 (page 291) of said act, not being satisfied with the arrangement of having only one school in said district, entered into a contract with a teacher to teach a school at another place in said district, which contract was disapproved by the county board, provided for by section 10 (page 292) of said act. Subsequently the county board entered into a contract with the defendant Walter Amos to teach at the place fixed by said redistricting board for the schoolhouse in said district.

The bill seeks to enjoin the county superintendent of education from paying any of the funds belonging to the public school fund of said district to said Walter Amos, or any other person, unless said person has been employed by them to teach a public school, and such contract has been approved by said county board; also prays the court to "decree that said county board of education has no right to prohibit the employment of more than one teacher in said school district, or to prohibit the employment of a teacher or teachers to teach more than one public school in said district, and that they be required and commanded to approve said employment of a teacher by complainants, as district trustees, where their approval has been withheld only on the ground that the school was not contracted to be taught at the place designated by the said redistricting board provided for by said section 2 of said act"; also that they be enjoined in the future from employing any such teachers, and from directing their payment; also that the county superintendent be enjoined.

The contention of the appellant is that the new law is only an amendment of the old, and (although there was no such officer under the old law as district trustee, and although the township trustees, under the old law, did not have the power to decide the number of schools to be held in a township, but had to call a meeting of the parents and guardians to attend to that matter, and although, under the old law, the action of said township trustees, in case the parents and guardians failed to act, was subject to an appeal to the county superintendent [Code 1896. §§ 3560, 3565] that the district trustees have a right to establish another school in a school district, make a contract with a teacher, and demand that he be paid out of the school funds. The act of 1903 is clearly a restatement of the entire law on the subject of the redistricting of the public schools, and in regard to the management and control of the same, and was intended to set up a new system, so that whatever power any school officer...