Hendrix v. Morris

• Decision Date: 29 January 1917
• Docket Number: 131
• Citation: 191 S.W. 949,127 Ark. 222
• Parties: HENDRIX v. MORRIS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

191 S.W. 949

127 Ark. 222

HENDRIX v. MORRIS

No. 131

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 29, 1917

Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor reversed.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

Powell Clayton and J. A. Comer, for appellant.

1. A special school district cannot employ teachers who are related to any of the members of the board in the absence of a petition signed by two-thirds of the patrons of the school. The burden was on the board to prove that the petitions contained the requisite number of signatures. Kirby's Digest, § 7616 as amended by Acts 1913, 85; 71 Ark. 87.

2. No power or authority to expend the funds of the district for an automobile and the maintenance of same is given by law. 56 Ark. 205; 95 Id. 26; 94 Id. 583; 38 L. R A. (N. S.) 710; 154 Ill.App. 119. In the absence of a statute allowing it school authorities cannot use school funds for the transportation of pupils. 35 Cyc. 1001; 67 Kans. 609, 73 P. 927; 168 Ind. 384, 81 N.E. 62; 38 L. R. A. 710-711. In this case the school district of England was extended so as to include Greenwood township and a tax levied but no authority to spend funds for transportation of pupils was given. Kirby's Digest, §§ 7613, 7614-15.

Morris & Morris and Jas. B. Gray, for appellees.

1. Appellant has entirely failed to show that the teachers were elected before a petition was filed as required by law. The law presumes the directors acted honestly and fulfilled their duties legally. 96 Ark. 477; 110 Ark. 511. The evidence shows and the court found that the necessary petitions were filed. 107 Ark. 462.

2. The automobile had been bought and paid for prior to this suit. An injunction would be ineffectual. 126 Tenn. 427; 22 Cyc 781; Ann. Cases, 1913, D. 967; 31 Okla. 49.

As a special school district it had the power and authority to purchase, maintain and operate, for school purposes, an automobile and trailer. Act 77, Acts 1915; Act 116, Acts 1911; 95 Ark. 26. It was "necessary." Serious injury will result if the injunction is granted. 22 Cyc. 748.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

Appellant brought this suit as a resident and taxpayer of England Special School District against the Directors thereof and the treasurer of Lonoke county to enjoin the directors from issuing, and the treasurer from paying, warrants of said district, given in payment of the expenses of operating an automobile in said district, and in payment of the salary of certain teachers. It was alleged, and is admitted, that all the teachers mentioned were related within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity to some one of the directors; but it is said that the teachers were only employed after petitions containing the signatures of two-thirds of the patrons of the school had been filed praying that said teachers be employed.

Only one witness testified upon this subject. This witness was James B. Gray, who stated that he was the secretary of the school board, and that he kept the minutes of the board, which were offered in evidence. These minutes showed that each of the teachers had filed a petition with the board signed by the requisite number of patrons of the school prior to their election as teachers. These minutes showed that at one meeting the board determined that two of the teachers in whose behalf petitions had been filed had petitions containing the requisite number of signers, and an adjournment for ten days was taken to afford the remaining teacher who was under disqualification an opportunity to comply with the law, by obtaining the requisite number of signers. These petitions were not preserved by the secretary, who explained their loss by saying the board had acted in good faith and had not anticipated that the legality of their action would be questioned. He testified, however, that the petitions were examined by each member of the board, and while no census was taken they estimated the number of families in the district and figured that the petitions contained the requisite number of signers, and in answer to the question, "So you don't know whether there were two-thirds of the patrons of the school signed these petitions or not, do you?" answered, "I think there was or we would not have passed it that way."

It was shown that the England Special School District embraced originally only the corporate limits of the incorporated town of England, but that by Act 77 of the Acts of 1915, page 260, said district was extended to include Common School District No. 18, and that as thus enlarged the district included all of Gum Woods township.

It was also shown that after the consolidation of the district, the directors purchased an automobile and a truck or trailer for the purpose of conveying the children living in the country to the school in the town, and that the school which had formerly been taught in the rural part of the district was suspended. It was shown that operation of this automobile involved a considerable expense, but it resulted in a greatly increased attendance upon the school.

The court found the fact to be that proper petitions had been filed which authorized the employment of the teachers, and sustained a demurrer to that portion of the complaint which sought to enjoin the payment of the warrants for the operation of the automobile, it being admitted that the automobile and tractor had been paid for some time before the institution of this suit.

While directors are prohibited, by Act 206, Acts of 1913, page 855 which amends section 7616 of Kirby's...