Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Bordewyk
| Decision Date | 15 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | 7288 |
| Citation | 241 N.W. 619,59 S.D. 559 |
| Parties | INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 of Springfield, Bon Homme County, SD, Appellant, v. J. W. BORDEWYK, Respondent. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bon Homme County, SD
#7288—Affirmed
C. C. Puckett, Tyndall, SD
A. J. Wilcox, Springfield, SD
Attorneys for Appellant.
E. E. Empey, Springfield, SD
Attorney for Respondent.
Opinion filed Mar 15, 1932
Plaintiff school district maintains a high school of twelve grades. So likewise does Tyndall independent school district. Defendant Bordewyk, a married man with family, was a resident of plaintiff school district for fourteen years prior to March 1, 1929, and was a resident thereof with his family at the time the annual official school census for the year 1928 was taken. March 1, 1929, defendant Bordewyk removed with his family from plaintiff school district and established his residence in Tyndall independent school district. Plaintiff school district is entitled to charge tuition for nonresident pupils in its high school in the amount of $12 per month.
Defendant Bordewyk has a brother, J. H. Bordewyk, who has resided in plaintiff school district for more than ten years and still resides there. When defendant removed with his family to Tyndall March 1, 1929, his minor daughter, Viola, who had always been a member of his family, was attending plaintiff district’s high school. Upon the removal of her father and the other members of the family, she remained in plaintiff district, staying at the home of her uncle J. H. Bordewyk, and continued to attend plaintiff’s high school until the end of the school year, when she graduated with the senior class. Thereupon she left immediately for Tyndall and again took up her actual residence with her father’s family. While staying with her uncle for the last three months of the school year, he made no charge to her or her father for her room or board, but she helped with the housework and “was the same as one of the family.” Her uncle bought no wearing apparel or anything of that kind for her, nor did he furnish her any money excepting occasionally to give her money to attend a moving picture show.
Under these circumstances, plaintiff school district, apparently contending that the residence of the minor Viola, as a matter of law, followed the residence of her father, and that she was therefore, from March 1, 1929, to the end of the school year, a resident of Tyndall school district and a non-resident of plaintiff school district, whose school she attended, instituted suit against the father in justice court to recover tuition for the attendance of Viola at plaintiff’s high school from the period March 1 to the end of the school year in the amount of $37.80.
Plaintiff had judgment in the justice court, and defendant appealed to the circuit court, where there appears to have been a trial de novo, jury waived. Most of the facts were stipulated in the circuit court, and at the conclusion of the trial the court made findings and conclusions in favor of defendant holding that there should be no recovery, and arrived at its result upon the theory that during the period March 1, to May 29, Viola’s uncle, in whose home she was then actually staying, stood to her in loco parentis, by virtue of which fact she was entitled to attend school in plaintiff district, where he (the uncle) resided, without tuition, regardless of the fact that her father and family were no longer residents of the district.
From judgment entered in favor of defendant, pursuant to said findings and conclusions, and from denial of its motion for new trial, plaintiff school district has now appealed.
Appellant insists that the evidence is entirely insufficient to establish that the uncle J. H. Bordewyk stood in loco parentis to the minor Viola. In this contention we think appellant is entirely correct. However, at the time involved in this action there was in force...
To continue reading
Request your trial