Greathouse v. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs of City of Indianapolis
| Citation | 151 N.E. 411,198 Ind. 95 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 25134.,25134. |
| Parties | GREATHOUSE v. BOARD OF SCHOOL COM'RS OF CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Marion County; T. J. Moll, Judge.
Action by Archie Greathouse against the Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis, a school corporation. Judgment for defendant on demurrer to the complaint, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred to Supreme Court pursuant to Burns' Ann. St. 1926, § 1351. Affirmed.
W. E. Henderson, R. L. Bailey, and W. S. Henry, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Albert Baker, of Indianapolis, for appellee.
This was an action brought by the appellant to enjoin the board of school commissioners of the city of Indianapolis, a school corporation, from erecting and maintaining a separate high school for colored children.
The first paragraph of the complaint alleges, in substance: That the plaintiff is the owner of real estate and personal property located in the city of Indianapolis, county of Marion, and state of Indiana, which is assessed for taxation for school and other purposes in the city of Indianapolis, county of Marion, and state of Indiana, and that he brings this cause of action as a taxpayer in behalf of himself and in behalf of all other taxpayers in and for said school city of Indianapolis, Ind.; that the defendant is the governing body of the school city of Indianapolis, and has charge and control of the affairs and business of said school city, a municipal corporation located in Marion county, Ind., and existing under and pursuant to the laws of the state of Indiana; that at a regular meeting of said body, a quorum thereof being present, said board decided to build within the city of Indianapolis one separate consolidated high school for the exclusive use of colored children, to which shall be admitted all colored pupils, and only all colored pupils who are sufficiently advanced and otherwise qualified; that, pursuant to said action of said board, said school corporation has picked and designated a location for said school, has employed architects to draft plans for the erection of said school, and is otherwise planning and threatening to build the said high school for the purpose of separating and segregating all pupils of African descent or negroes sufficiently advanced and otherwise duly qualified to matriculate in and attend the high schools of the school city of Indianapolis, and that, unless the said defendant is enjoined from doing so, it will so erect and maintain a separate consolidated high school as aforesaid; that said defendant has no legal right or authority whatsoever to thus expend the taxpayers' money in so erecting and maintaining a separate high school for the exclusive use of colored pupils; that the high schools of the state of Indiana are open to all pupils sufficiently advanced; and that all pupils who are sufficiently advanced shall be admitted to the high schools of the state of Indiana irrespective of the race to which said pupil or pupils may belong; that the defendant is arbitrarily, and without right or power, planning and intending to build a separate high school for colored children as aforesaid, and, in so doing, spending wrongfully and unlawfully money belonging to the school city of Indianapolis for the purpose of paying the cost of so erecting and maintaining said separate consolidated high school; and that, unless restrained, said defendant will build, erect, and maintain said high school, and will thus proceed unlawfully to expend and disburse the funds and moneys of said school city for the erection and maintenance of said building for said purpose exclusively; and that, as a result of said unlawful procedure by said defendant, the school city of the city of Indianapolis will be and become liable at law for the payment of large sums of money of said school city and of this plaintiff and other taxpayers for such unlawful purpose; that this plaintiff, as a taxpayer, and all other taxpayers in said school city are wholly without any complete or adequate remedy at law to prevent said unlawful waste of the taxpayers' money. Wherefore plaintiff prays that a writ of injunction issue temporarily until hearing may be had and perpetual and permanent injunction thereafter may issue restraining the said school corporation from taking any other actions or steps whatsoever to build, erect, and maintain a separate consolidated high school for the sole and exclusive use of the colored pupils of the school city of Indianapolis who are sufficiently advanced and otherwise qualified to attend the high schools of said school city, and that the said defendant be likewise enjoined from issuing bonds to raise money or expending any part of the taxpayers' money of said school city or money which taxpayers will eventually be compelled to pay in executing and carrying out its said unlawful purposes.
The second paragraph is the same as the first, except that it contains the additional averments: That the high school facilities of the city of Indianapolis are divided into three separate and distinct classes, that is to say, technical, manual, and classical and academic, as evidenced by the Arsenal-Technical High School, the Manual Training High School, and the Shortridge High School; that the school property of the city of Indianapolis has been purchased, erected, and equipped at a cost of many millions of dollars, and that the said sum has been thus invested for high school purposes for the school city of the city of Indianapolis, and that every high school pupil sufficiently advanced and otherwise duly qualified, irrespective of race, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and advantages thus afforded by the said high school system of the said school city of the city of Indianapolis, Ind., together with the right to elect which of said schools he will attend, and to receive training and instruction in any of the said schools best fitted by faculty, apparatus, and equipment to best fit him for his future usefulness and vocation in life; that the defendant is planning to spend more than $1,000,000 in the construction of one separate unit of high school for the exclusive use of white pupils, and approximately $150,000 for said separate high school, and that the defendant cannot at any time under any circumstances provide a separate high school for the exclusive use of colored children as aforesaid in conformity to law, that is to say, having all of the rights, privileges, and equal advantages now installed and maintained in the Technical, Manual, and Shortridge High Schools for the common use of pupils, irrespective of the race or creed, for the said sum of $150,000and that this is due to the fact that the law places a limit on the amount of the assessment on property for school purposes and on the amount of bonds which may be issued for such purposes; that, if the defendant is permitted to thus proceed to erect said high school for colored pupils exclusively the said colored pupils will be thus denied their said rights of equal school facilities and advantages now accorded all pupils as hereinbefore set off, and, as a result thereof, there will arise a multiplicity of suits to be defended by said defendant at the expense of this taxpayer and all other taxpayers of the school city of Indianapolis; that to erect separate high schools for the colored pupils of the city of Indianapolis, which would provide all of the equal rights, privileges, and advantages of the other high schools of the city, would require many millions of dollars, and thus bankrupt the school city of the city of Indianapolis, and also exceed the legal limit placed upon assessments for school purposes and the legal authority for issuing bonds for the erection of school buildings to the extent of making it impossible for the defendant to provide the colored pupils in said school city through said $150,000 separate schools or otherwise all of the equal rights, privileges, and advantages of all the other high schools of the school city of Indianapolis to which they are lawfully entitled.
A separate and several demurrer was filed to each paragraph of the complaint. The court sustained the demurrer to each of said paragraphs, and, the plaintiff refusing to plead further, judgment was rendered that the plaintiff take nothing by this action, and that the defendant recover his costs. From this judgment an appeal was taken, and appellant assigns as error that the court erred in sustaining the separate and several demurrers to each paragraph of the complaint.
The appellant in his brief says that-
[1] Each paragraph of the complaint shows on its face that the defendant is the city school corporation in the city of Indianapolis, and that the acts mentioned in the complaint as being done by the defendant are strictly matters which by law are committed to the determination of the defendant acting according to its discretion, and were acts authorized by the defendant school corporation as the result of formal corporate action of said corporation.
In the absence of fraud, the courts will not interpose and impose upon school authorities the judgment of the court concerning matters committed by law to the discretion of school authorities. State ex rel. v. Gray, 93 Ind. 303;State ex rel. v. Grubb, 85 Ind. 213;Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am. Rep. 738. No fraud is alleged in the complaint.
[2] The common school system includes, as a part thereof, high schools. State v. O'Dell, 118 N. E. 529, 187 Ind. 84. This has been so from the organization of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial