Jones v. Day
| Citation | 89 So. 906,127 Miss. 136 |
| Decision Date | 28 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | 22021 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Parties | JONES et al. v. DAY et al |
APPEAL from chancery court of Wilkinson county, HON. R. W. CUTRER Chancellor.
Suit by A. H. Jones and others against John C. Day and others, for an injunction. Bill dismissed, and both parties appeal. Affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
A. H Jones, for appellants.
Bramlette & Bramlette, for appellees.
The appellant, A. H. Jones, on behalf of himself and as father and next friend of Ben Shaifer Jones, minor, in this proceeding against the county superintendent and the trustees of the Wilkinson County Agricultural High School, seeks to perpetually enjoin the enforcement and to have declared null and void certain rules and regulations adopted by the board of trustees of this high school, which are as follows: A rule passed on September 10, 1918, as follows:
"It was carried that a uniform of khaki as per sample selected be adopted for high school boys and that all of same be required to wear them, which shall consist of one coat, two pairs of pants, one pair leggings, two shirts one cap, two black ties, as a minimum, and two coats, three pairs pants, two pairs leggings, three shirts, one cap and three ties as a maximum."
And also the following rule adopted on the 25th day of October, 1920, as follows:
"It was ordered that the principal be instructed to enforce the uniform regulations on all students when visiting public places within five miles of the school even on Saturdays and Sundays."
The bill alleges that under these rules all students and pupils of the high school are required to wear at all times and at all places, at home, at school, and elsewhere this uniform; that these rules are illegal, unauthorized, and ultra vires because by them it is attempted to govern and manage the said students and pupils at times and places when the authority of the board of trustees is at an end, and when the students have left the school and are under the control and supervision of their parents. The answer denies the material allegations of the bill and alleges that because of existing conditions in the judgment of the board of trustees it was necessary for the welfare of the school and in order to maintain proper discipline to pass these rules. A temporary injunction was issued which was dissolved on final hearing when decree was entered dismissing the bill and assessing as damage an attorney's fee of twenty-five dollars. The complainant, appellant here, prosecutes an appeal from this decree, and the defendants in the court below, appellees here, prosecute a cross-appeal, presenting solely the question of the inadequacy of the fee allowed in the court below.
In his decree the chancellor held that the orders passed by the board of trustees, requiring the students to wear the uniform not only while in attendance in the school, but when they appear in public places and on the streets, is not such an unreasonable regulation that the court should interfere when the testimony shows that it aids in the discipline of the school. But further held that, if it is the purpose to invade the home and undertake to say what the children should wear at home, that would be unreasonable.
The authority principally relied upon by the appellant is Hobbs v. Germany, 94 Miss. 469, 49 So. 515, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 983. The rule adopted by the teacher of the public school in that case was one requiring the pupils to remain in their homes and study from seven to nine in the evening. In the very exhaustive opinion in that case the court quotes with approval from the opinion of Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66 Mo. 286, 27 Am. Rep. 343, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice Researchers, Inc. v. Hiter
...were not dissolved until after the hearing on the merits. Citing Coleman v. Lucas, 206 Miss. 274, 39 So.2d 879 (1949) and Jones v. Day, 127 Miss. 136, 89 So. 906 (1921), as examples of this Court's rejection of the argument RRI makes in the instant case, Williams submits that the holding in......
-
Morris v. Vandiver
...70 So. 652. The point presented in the appellant's brief, as we see it, was expressly presented to and decided by this court in Jones v. Day, 127 Miss. 137. appellees have been deprived of no right by the adoption of the regulations in question. Ethridge, J., Anderson, J., specially concurr......
-
Conyers v. Glenn
...of clothing tending toward immodesty in dress.' Referring to the annotations cited, he would have learned that in Jones v. Day, 1921, 127 Miss. 136, 89 So. 906, 18 A.L.R. 645, the Supreme Court of Mississippi upheld a rule of the trustees of the Wilkinson County Agricultural High School req......
-
Stone v. Probst
...1918A, 399; Streich v. Board of Education, 34 S. D. 169, 147 N. W. 779, L. R. A. 1915A, 632, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 760; Jones v. Day, 127 Miss. 136, 89 So. 906, 18 A. L. R. 645; Pugsley Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247, 250 S. W. 538, 30 A. L. R. 1212; People ex rel. Hill v. Board of Education, 224 Mich.......