Goggans v. State Board of Education

• Decision Date: 08 December 1925
• Docket Number: 11875.
• Parties: GOGGANS ET AL. v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

130 S.E. 645

133 S.C. 183

GOGGANS ET AL. v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 11875.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 8, 1925

Original petition by S. H. Goggans and others for writ of certiorari to review an action of the State Board of Education, confirming an action of the County Board of Education of Laurens County in ordering consolidation of school districts. Order of State Board, confirming action of County Board, reversed, and petition for consolidation before County Board dismissed.

Blackwell Sullivan & Wilson, of Laurens, for petitioners.

W. B Knight, of Laurens, for respondent.

COTHRAN J.

This is a petition in the original jurisdiction of this court for a writ of certiorari against the state board of education, for the purpose of reviewing its action confirming the action of the county board of education of Laurens county in ordering a consolidation of Cross Hill school district No. 3 with Cross Hill school district No. 13.

It appears that on February 11, 1925, a petition was filed with the county board asking for the consolidation of the two districts. It was signed by 41 of the qualified voters of district No. 3. It does not appear that a similar petition was filed by the qualified voters of district No. 13. The county board of education passed an order consolidating the two districts, over the protest of the petitioners herein qualified voters of district No. 3. Their objections were upon various grounds, which, under the view of the matter which this court takes, need not be considered.

In the second proviso of section 2599, Code of 1922, is as follows:

"That no school district shall be consolidated except upon a petition of at least one third of the qualified voters of the school district proposed to be consolidated."

District No. 13 is as much "proposed to be consolidated" by the petition as district No. 3; the requirement of a petition of one-third of the qualified voters is therefore applicable equally to it; it is equally entitled to be heard upon the proposition for consolidation. The meaning of the proviso would more clearly appear if it read as follows:

"That no school districts shall be consolidated except upon a petition of at least one-third of the qualified voters of each of the school districts proposed to be consolidated."

This being true, the county board of education was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition for consolidation, its action was ...