Johnson v. Robbins
| Decision Date | 15 February 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-289,5-289 |
| Citation | 223 Ark. 150,264 S.W.2d 640 |
| Parties | JOHNSON et al. v. ROBBINS et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Richard W. Hobbs, Hot Springs, for appellants.
Roy Mitchell, Q. Byrum Hurst and M. C. Lewis, Jr., all of Hot Springs, for appellees.
This appeal questions the action of the trial court in overruling a demurrer to the appellees' complaint. The only issue is whether that pleading states a cause of action.
Seven patrons of Garland County School District No. 1 brought this representative suit against the district and its directors. The plaintiffs allege that at the 1952 school election the voters authorized the issuance of bonds for the construction of a school building 'in the Western part of the District.' It is averred that the language just quoted, which appeared onthe ballot, was intended to mean, and was understood by the electors to mean, the western third of the district. The directors of the district, however, have construed the phrase to refer to the western half of the district. Pursuant to that interpretation the directors have successively selected three building sites only slightly west of the center of the district. The first two sites were disapproved by the County Board of Education, acting under Ark.Stats.1947, § 80-509(b); but the County Board has not yet acted upon the third selection.
The complaint alleges that the directors have acted arbitrarily in choosing sites approximately in the center of the district. The prayer is that the court interpret the phrase, 'the Western part of the District,' that the court itself select a site for the new building, and that the directors be required to abide by the court's choice.
We think the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The matter of determining the location for the new building is not within the province of the courts. The authority and the responsibility for conducting the district's affairs are vested by law in the board of directors. 'It was never contemplated that the chancery court should supervise or direct the conduct of the school and board of directors in the operation of the school'. Merritt v. Dermott Special School Dist., 188 Ark. 243, 65 S.W.2d 33, 35. Although it is true, as the appellees point out, that arbitrary action on the part of a school board is subject to judicial review, the court even then does not substitute its judgment for that of the board. All that equity does is to restrain a course of conduct found to be arbitrary; the choice of a more reasonable plan is then left to the directors. In the case at bar the third selection is not yet final, in that the County Board of Education has not given its necessary approval. But even if that board had acted it is not the court's place to life the matter from the hands of the two administrative agencies and to make for them the choice that the law commits to their discretion.
There remains for consideration that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Trustees of Emp. Retirement System of City of Montgomery v. Talley, 3 Div. 456
...which would be affected by the declaration have not been made parties to the action, and as stated in Johnson v. Robbins, supra, (223 Ark. 150, 264 S.W.2d 640) 'that no controversy would be terminated by an adjudication not binding upon everyone concerned', the decree is In 26 C.J.S. Declar......
-
Yamauchi v. Sovran Bank/Central South Trustee of Lewis B. Ridley Trust
...without a remedy. Our cases have all followed this latter construction of the declaratory judgment statute. In Johnson v. Robbins, 223 Ark. 150, 152, 264 S.W.2d 640, 642 (1954), we wrote: "We need not now go so far as to say, as some courts have, that the presence of all necessary parties i......
-
Traveler's Indem. Co. v. Olive's Sporting Goods, Inc.
...parties were not brought into court. There we relied on Laman v. Martin, 235 Ark. 938, 362 S.W.2d 711 (1962), Johnson v. Robbins, 223 Ark. 150, 264 S.W.2d 640 (1954) and portions of two Arkansas statutes, to Parties.--When the declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties ......
-
McFarlin v. Kelly, 5--4853
...by this action. The failure to make any of them parties was a defect requiring the denial of a declaratory judgment. Johnson v. Robbins, 223 Ark. 150, 264 S.W.2d 640; Laman v. Martin, 235 Ark. 938, 362 S.W.2d 711; Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 236 Ark. 268, 365 S.W.2d ......