Ireland v. State ex rel. Barnhart
| Decision Date | 25 October 1905 |
| Docket Number | 20,488 |
| Citation | 75 N.E. 872,165 Ind. 377 |
| Parties | Ireland, Trustee, v. State, ex rel. Barnhart et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Wabash Circuit Court; H. B. Shively, Special Judge.
Action by the State of Indiana, on the relation of Frederick Barnhart and others, against Frank Ireland as trustee of Pleasant School Township. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Sayre & Hunter, for appellant.
The relators brought this action to compel appellant by writ of mandate to employ a teacher and maintain a school in school district number sixteen of said township, for the school year 1903-4. A trial of said cause by the court resulted in a finding and judgment in favor of the relators for a peremptory writ of mandate that appellant employ a teacher and maintain said school.
Prior to the adoption of the act approved March 7, 1901 (Acts 1901 p. 159, § 5920f Burns 1901), the trustee of the school township had the power to abolish a school district when in his judgment the public interest required it, subject to the right of appeal to the county superintendent. Such discretion, if exercised in good faith, could not be reviewed by the courts. State, ex rel., v. Seely (1904), 163 Ind. 244, 70 N.E. 805, and cases cited; State, ex rel., v. Wilson (1898), 149 Ind 253, 254, 48 N.E. 1030, and cases cited; Braden v. McNutt (1888), 114 Ind. 214, 215, 16 N.E. 170, and cases cited; Carnahan v. State, ex rel. (1900), 155 Ind. 156, 157, 57 N.E. 717, and cases cited.
Said act of 1901 provides: It is alleged in the amended petition for the writ of mandate that when appellant, as trustee of said school township "abandoned said school, he did not have the written consent of a majority of the legal voters in said school district." Does it appear from this allegation that appellant did not have the written consent required by said act to authorize him to abandon said school district? We think not. Before the taking effect of the act of 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 448, §§ 5959a-5959e Burns 1901) the parents, guardians and those having charge of children entitled to school privileges were transferred for school purposes, under § 5959 Burns 1901, § 4473 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1901, from the school corporation in which they resided to another, and their property, real and personal, situate in the township in which they reside was transferred with them to the school corporation to which they were transferred, and was taxable there for school purposes the same as if located therein, and they became legal voters of the school district to which they were attached at all school meetings of said district. Johns v. State, ex rel. (1892), 130 Ind. 522, 30 N.E. 640. But a radical change was made as to transfers from one school corporation to another by said act of 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 448, § 5959a-5959e Burns 1901). Under the last-named act, the child of school age, and not the parent, guardian or custodian, is transferred from one school corporation to another for educational purposes (Weir v. State, ex rel. [1903], 161 Ind. 435, 439, 68 N.E. 1023), and no property, real or personal, is thereby transferred for the purposes of taxation to the school corporation to which such transfer is made; but...
To continue reading
Request your trial