Hill v. Houk

• Decision Date: 21 May 1908
• Parties: HILL ET AL. v. HOUK ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

46 So. 562

155 Ala. 448

HILL ET AL. v. HOUK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 21, 1908

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

Suit by H. P. Houk and others against A. P. Hill and others. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The bill alleges that Houk and Jones, together with the respondent C. B. Kirkpatrick, are the duly qualified trustees of Garth public school district No. 67 in Jackson county Ala., created by the redistricting board of that county in the year 1904. At the time of the organization of said district there was located therein a schoolhouse, a two-story frame building, erected by Rousseau Bros., which at first was their private property, but prior to 1904 said property was deeded by them to respondent Kirkpatrick, L. Jones Flannagan, and Smith for school purposes. It was stipulated in said deed that the persons named as such trustees should have the control and management of the selection of a teacher, etc. At the time of the execution of the deed from Rousseau Bros., other persons were named as grantees, as shown by original deed exhibited to the answer. Among these besides the respondent, were Monroe Clemmons, W. E Flannagan, W. J. Smith, J. E. Archey, J. G. Moore, J. S Keel, and J. P. Webb. Mrs. Margaret Flannagan has since succeeded to all the interest of such Clemmons, Moore, and Keel. None of said grantees or assignees, except P. L. Jones, who is the assignee of J. P. Webb, claim any right or title in said premises, and have taken no part in the matters complained of in this bill, and for the purpose of perfecting the right of the public to said school property as to the interest heretofore held by them have executed their quitclaim deed to the county board of education, which deed is hereto attached as Exhibit B to this bill. Thereafter it was used as public school property until the organization of the school district aforesaid. On the organization of said district by the redistricting board, the question of the location of the free school in said district came before said board in mass meeting of the patrons of the public school in said district. In said meeting the respondents therein, who held the legal title to the school property in trust as before stated, in consideration that the school of said district be located at said house, and in the further consideration that the patrons of the school should make certain stipulated repairs and furnish said schoolhouse with desks, publicly proposed that they (the respondents) would turn over said school property entirely to the school district and the trustees thereof, to be held and used exclusively for public school purposes. Said proposal was then and there accepted by the redistricting board of the county and by the patrons, who proceeded to make the stipulated repairs and to furnish the building, in all respects as proposed, at a cost of about $160. Thereupon the possession and control of said property was delivered to the district trustees, who have since held, occupied, and used the same as free school property until within the last six months. Within the last few months the respondents, who hold the naked legal title to said property, provoked by the refusal of complainants, as the majority of the district trustees, to employ the defendant A. P. Hill as a teacher of the public school, have sought to divert said school property from the trust and use to which it has been dedicated as above stated, and have caused respondent A. P. Hill, without the consent of complainants, to open a private school in said schoolhouse, and he is now so occupying same. Respondents other than said Hill are seeking to reassert their control over said property under their alleged deed as above referred to, and to usurp the functions of the office of district trustee in the selection of teachers, and, failing to get a legal contract for a free school, are diverting the property from its public use to the private use as above stated. Said Hill holds under said defendants and occupies under their usurped authority. These complainants have made and entered into a contract with a competent qualified teacher for said public school, which contract has been approved by the county board of education, and the school was set for opening on May 20, 1907. Complainants made demand in writing upon said A. P. Hill to vacate said property. He refused, and continues to occupy said building. Complainants brought suit of forcible entry and detainer against him, and recovered judgment, and said Hill has appealed said cause to the next term of the circuit court of said county. Said cause cannot be heard until September next. Meantime, there being no other schoolhouse in said district, the school children are deprived of the benefit of their free schools, and after the hearing of said suit of forcible entry and detainer it will be too late to have any free school in said district for the present scholastic year; the children suffering irreparable loss of school advantages and the district the loss of its funds for that...