Jordan v. Davis

Decision Date30 June 1900
PartiesJORDAN, County Superintendent, v. DAVIS.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

1. St. Okl. 1893, § 5820, which reads: "No certificate shall be of force except in the county in which it is issued provided, that the county superintendent may endorse unexpired first grade certificates issued in other counties on payment of the fee of one dollar, which certificate shall thereby be valid in the county in which such indorsement is made for the unexpired term of the certificate,"--imposes an imperative duty on the county superintendent to indorse proper certificates when presented to him, and such officer is vested with no arbitrary discretion in such cases.

2. Where a power is given to public officers, and the public interest or individual rights call for its exercise, the language used, though per-missive in form, is in fact peremptory. What they are empowered to do for a third person the law requires shall be done. The power is given, not for their benefit, but for his. The power is deposited as a remedy to those entitled to invoke its aid. In all such cases the intent of the legislature, which is the test, was not to devolve a mere discretion, but to impose a positive and absolute duty.

Appeal from district court, Washita county; before Justice Clinton F. Irwin.

Application for mandamus by Lelah Davis against S. J. Jordan, county superintendent of schools of Washita county. From a judgment granting the writ, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

F. A Edwards, for plaintiff in error.

Smith & Sitterly, for defendant in error.

BURFORD C.J.

But one question is presented by the record in this cause: Will mandamus lie to compel a county superintendent of schools to indorse an unexpired first-grade certificate issued in another county, so as to make it valid in the county in which such indorsement is made? The district court of Washita county issued a peremptory writ commanding the county superintendent of schools of that county to indorse such a certificate. The superintendent appeals from the judgment ordering the writ, and the case is before us for review. Is the statute authorizing the indorsement of such certificates mandatory or discretionary? The statute (article 5, c. 73 St. 1893) provided for a board of county examiners in each county, to be composed of the county superintendent and two competent persons, who are holders either of first-grade certificates, territorial certificates, or diplomas from some state university, state normal, or state agricultural college. This board is required, at certain periods, to publicly examine all persons proposing to teach in the public schools of the county, and issue certificates to all such applicants as shall pass the required examination, and satisfy the board as to their good moral character and their ability to teach and govern schools successfully. These certificates are by the amended Statutes of 1897 classified into three grades. The first grade is issued to persons over 20 years of age who have taught successfully 12 school months, and have made a general average of 90 per cent. in certain designated branches. The second-grade certificates are issued to persons not less than 18 years of age who have taught successfully 3 school months, and who make a general average of 80 per cent. in the required branches. The third-grade certificates are issued to persons over 16 years of age who make an average grade of 70 per cent. in the required studies. The county superintendent may, grant temporary certificates, in cases of necessity, upon written request of a district school board, to be good only in a designated district, and until the next regular examination by the county board of examiners. The territorial board of education, comprised of the territorial superintendent of public instruction, president of the territorial normal school, president of the University of Oklahoma, one superintendent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Atwood v. Tucker
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1914
    ...52 Mich. 394, 18 N.W. 121; Streissguth v. Reigelman, 75 Wis. 212, 43 N.W. 1116; State v. Barry, 14 N.D. 316, 103 N.W. 637; Jordan v. Davis, 10 Okla. 329, 61 P. 1063; Traders' Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Humphrey, 207 Ill. 540, N.E. 375. Oscar J. Seiler and A. W. Aylmer, for respondent. The trial co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT