Kinzer v. Dirs. of Indep. Sch. Dist. of Marion

• Decision Date: 18 January 1906
• Parties: KINZER v. DIRECTORS OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. OF MARION.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

129 Iowa 441

105 N.W. 686

KINZER

v.DIRECTORS OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. OF MARION.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 18, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Linn County; B. H. Miller, Judge.

Action of mandamus to compel the defendants, directors of the independent school district of Marion, to admit the plaintiff to the privileges of the high school of said district, from which the defendants are excluding him under an order of suspension for violation of rules and regulations made by them. On demurrer to plaintiff's petition, judgment was rendered for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.F. L. Anderson, for appellant.

Voris & Haas, for appellees.

McCLAIN, C. J.

It appears from the allegations in plaintiff's petition that plaintiff was by a resolution of the defendant board of directors suspended from the high school of which he was a pupil until he should apologize to the superintendent before the school, and through the superintendent to the board, for the willful violation of a rule adopted by the board, of which violation the board on investigation found plaintiff to be guilty. The rule was as follows: Resolved, that the board of directors disfavor football on account of injuries to life and limb. The board will lend all assistance, morally and financially, in support of baseball, the gymnasium, or track work, but for the above reasons will not permit football or practice under the auspices of the High School or on the school grounds. The violation charged consisted in participating in a game of football, as a member of a team composed largely of the students of the high school, which was played on a Saturday afternoon at the fair grounds. It also appears that plaintiff, with the other members of the team, caused to be printed and posted in the city of Marion a poster and advertisement of the game, which was represented to be a game between the West Branch High School and the High School of Marion for which an admission fee of 25 cents was charged. The questions argued are, first, whether the board had any authority to adopt the rule above quoted; second, whether the conduct of plaintiff was a violation of such rule; third, whether a certain apology made by the plaintiff to the board (not in the method pointed out by the board in its resolution of suspension) was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to readmission to the school under the terms of his suspension; and, fourth, whether this proceeding by mandamus is the proper method of testing the validity and propriety of the proceedings of the board.

1. Considering first the question whether plaintiff has resorted to the proper procedure in order to secure a review of the action of the defendant board, it is at once apparent that his application for a writ of mandamus will not lie if he has any other remedy in the ordinary course of the law which is plain, speedy, and adequate. Code, § 4344. It is also plain that plaintiff cannot maintain this action to question the proceedings of the defendants in a matter which is within their discretion. Code, § 4341. The method provided for reviewing the proceedings of a school board, either as to law or fact, relating to a subject which is within their jurisdiction and as to which a discretion is vested in them, is by appeal to the county superintendent of schools. Code, § 2818. But the courts are not excluded, by this provision for appeal to the county superintendent, from considering the question whether the board was, in the matter complained of, acting within the scope of its powers as defined by the statute. The board is given authority in Code, § 2772, to “make rules and regulations for its own government and that of the directors, officers, and teachers and pupils” and in Code, § 2782, to “expel any scholar from school for immorality or for violation of the regulations or rules established by the board, or when the presence of the scholar is detrimental to the best interests of the school.” Whether the rule adopted by the board, the enforcement of which is complained of, is reasonably within the scope of the power thus conferred, is subject to inquiry in the courts, and the party complaining is not limited to an appeal to the county superintendent. Perkins v. Directors, 56 Iowa, 476, 9 N. W. 356;Hinkle v. Sadler, 97 Iowa, 526, 66 N. W. 765;Rodgers v. Independent School Dist., 100 Iowa, 317, 69 N. W. 544. This is in accordance with the general rule that in an action of mandamus or other special proceedings the question whether an inferior tribunal, such as a school board, has acted within the scope of its authority, may be determined. State ex rel. v. Board of Education, 63 Wis. 234, 23 N. W. 102, 53 Am. Rep. 282;King v. Jefferson City School Board, 71 Mo. 628, 36 Am. Rep. 499;Board of Education v. Purse, 101 Ga. 422, 28 S. E. 896, 41 L. R. A. 593, 65 Am. St. Rep. 312.

We are required. therefore, to decide whether the rule of the defendant board, for the alleged violation of which plaintiff was excluded from the high school, was within the power of the board to enact. And here it may be suggested that the court should hesitate to interfere with the regularly constituted school authorities in their management of the scholars which are placed under their charge. The Legislature is expressly authorized to provide for the educational interests of the state, in such manner as shall seem best and proper. See article 9 of section 15 of the state Constitution. And in the exercise of this power school districts have been created, authorized to have exclusive jurisdiction in all school matters over their respective territories. Code, § 2743. It is further provided that the affairs of each school corporation...