Jacox v. Amerman
| Decision Date | 01 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 304. |
| Citation | 291 N.W. 247,293 Mich. 126 |
| Parties | JACOX v. AMERMAN et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mandamus proceeding by Ray Jacox against Jewett Amerman, Berthold R. Spriggs, Elmer Riggs, Gillman Mullreed, and Jesse Smith, members of the Board of Education of Van Buren Consolidated School District, a municipal corporation. From an order granting mandamus, defendants appeal.
Order vacated.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Joseph A. Moynihan, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Fordyce W. Riggs, of Belleville, and Walter I. McKenzie, of Detroit, for plaintiff and appellee.
Nellis & Nellis and Caroline Thrun, all of Detroit, for defendants and appellants.
The parties to this appeal agree that the Van Buren Consolidated School District of Van Buren Township, Wayne county, is organized under Chapter 4, part 1, of the Michigan School Code. Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 7131-7171; Stat.Ann. 15.51 to 15.91. At the June, 1939 election of members of the Board of Education of the district,Ray Jacox, plaintiff herein, received 301 votes and Jewett Amerman received 302 votes, according to the canvass of votes made by the Board of Education acting in its capacity as the Board of Election Inspectors and Canvassers. Comp.Laws 1929, § 7151; Stat.Ann. 15.71. Plaintiff timely served upon the Board of Education a petition for a recount. For more than 60 days after being served the board neglected and failed to conduct a recount. Thereupon plaintiff petitioned the circuit court of Wayne county to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the Board of Education to conduct a recount, and to issue a certificate of election to plaintiff in event the recount resulted in his election. Upon hearing in the circuit court the relief sought was ordered. Leave having been granted, the members of the Board of Education have appealed.
Plaintiff did not allege nor did he submit any testimony to prove that this school district either by action of the electors or of the school board has exercised the option of placing itself under the provisions of Chapter 7, part 2 of the school code (Comp.Laws 1929, § 7446 et seq.; Stat.Ann. 15.470 et seq.); and appellants assert that under the circumstances the General Election Laws, particularly the provisions for recounts, do not apply to this school district. In this connection appellants correctly contend that school districts and school officers have only such powers as the statutes expressly or impliedly grant to them. McLaughlin v. Bd. of Education, 255 Mich. 667, 239 N.W. 374;Bates Twp. School District v. Elliott, 276 Mich. 575, 268 N.W. 744.
As above stated, the Van Buren Consolidated District is a township district school and is organized under Chapter 4, part 1 of the school code, above cited. In this part of the school code there is no provision for conducting a recount unless, as appellee contends, it is to be found in the last section of Chapter 4, which reads: ‘All school districts organized and operating under the provisions of this chapter shall be governed by the provisions of law contained in part two (2) of this act and by the graded school law, and by the provisions of law, relating thereto, except as inconsistent with this chapter.’ Comp.Laws 1929, § 7171; Stat.Ann. 15.91.
Appellee contends the above provision that districts of this type ‘shall be governed * * * by the graded school law’ should be construed to mean that they are subject to the provisions of Chapters 6, 7, and 8 of part 1 of the school code, which respectively provide for school districts of the third, second and first class; and in each of which chapters there is a provision which appellee asserts makes the General Election Law, particularly as to recounts, applicable to school elections in the districts of these three classes. See Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 7228, 7250, and 7273, being Stat.Ann. 15.190, 15.238, and 15.261.
We think such contention cannot be sustained if, as must be done, consideration is given to the full context and arrangement of the school code. First it must be noted that Chapters 6, 7, and 8 of part 1 of the code pertain to urban schools; whereas Chapter 4 which governs the Van Buren Consolidated Township District, as well as the preceding chapter and the following chapter, i. e., Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of part 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. Charlotte Public School Dist., Eaton County
...to them. Senghas v. L'Anse Creuse Public Schools, 368 Mich. 557, 560, 118 N.W.2d 975 (1962); Jacox v. Bd. of Ed. of Van Buren Consolidated School Dist., 293 Mich. 126, 128, 291 N.W. 247 (1940). Sections 1282 and 1300 of the School Code set forth some of those duties and "The board of a scho......
-
Mich. Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State
...and school officers have only such powers as the statutes expressly or impliedly grant to them.” Jacox v. Van Buren Consol. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed., 293 Mich. 126, 128, 291 N.W. 247 (1940). “ ‘The extent of the authority of the people's public agents is measured by the statute from which they......
-
Mich. Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State
...and school officers have only such powers as the statutes expressly or impliedly grant to them." Jacox v. Van Buren Consol. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed., 293 Mich. 126, 128, 291 N.W. 247 (1940). " 'The extent of the authority of the people's public agents is measured by the statute fromwhich they ......
-
Foster v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 10, Delta Tp., 72
...of electors and recounts do not here apply. A like situation came before the Court in Jacox v. Board of Education of Van Buren Consolidated School District, 293 Mich. 126, 291 N.W. 247, where a petition for a recount was filed. The board, as in the instant case, ignored the petition. The Co......