Lewis v. Board of Ed. of Lowndes County
| Decision Date | 04 December 1936 |
| Docket Number | 11449. |
| Citation | 189 S.E. 233,183 Ga. 687 |
| Parties | LEWIS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LOWNDES COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1936.
Error from Superior Court, Lowndes County; W. E. Thomas, Judge.
Suit by J. F. Lewis against the Board of Education of Lowndes County and others. To review a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Equity follows the law, and is ancillary, not antagonistic thereto, and equity will not give relief when to do so would violate the express provisions of a statute.
2. It affirmatively appears from the allegations of the petition that payment of the indebtednesses due to the petitioner by the Board of Education of Lowndes County was not provided for as an estimated expenditure from the funds included in the budget filed by the county board with the State Board of Education. Under a proper construction of the Code, § 32-947, which declares that a county 'shall, in their expenditures of all public school funds from whatever sources, conform to said budget,' the petitioner is not legally entitled to compel payment out of the funds included in said budget, and equity will not impound said funds for the purpose of compelling payment therefrom of the indebtednesses due petitioner. Cases distinguished.
Fred Powell and Wilcox, Connell & Wilcox, all of Valdosta, for plaintiff in error.
A. J Little, Converse & Coleman, and Copeland & Dukes, all of Valdosta, for defendants in error.
On April 18, 1936, J. F. Lewis, in behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brought a petition against Lowndes County, the Board of Education of Lowndes County, the secretary of said board, the superintendent of schools of said county, the tax commissioner of the county, and the First National Bank of Valdosta, alleging substantially as follows: The board is indebted to petitioner upon a promissory note, due April 28, 1933, in the principal sum of $2,200, plus interest and attorney's fees, said note being a renewal note given for the balance due after successive renewals of a certain note for $7,000 evidencing a loan by petitioner to the board pursuant to a resolution passed at the regular monthly meeting of the board on March 26, 1932. The amount due the board from the public school fund of the state for the year 1932 was far in excess of the $7,000, and far in excess of moneys borrowed by the board during the year. The board is further indebted to petitioner on certain warrants issued in the years 1930, 1931, and 1932 for legal and authorized expenses of administering and operating the schools of the county. Each of the claims evidenced by the warrants has been approved and audited and all are for legitimate items of expense which can and ought to be paid out of the common school fund of the county. These claims are admitted to be due and correct by the school authorities. During the fiscal years 1930, 1931, and 1932 the board did not make any contracts, create any indebtedness, or issue any orders or drafts which involved the expenditure of funds in excess of the funds received by the board from all sources for the support of the county schools for the said fiscal years, or in excess of the total funds appropriated to the lawful uses of the board. A considerable portion of the funds received by the board during the years 1930, 1931, and 1932 was used to pay old debts which were valid and lawful obligations of the board. All of the indebtednesses sued upon were incurred for the purpose of administering and operating the schools of the county for the years in which the debts were incurred. The claims of petitioner as evidenced by the warrants constitute equitable assignments of so much of the common school fund as will be necessary to pay them in full, which entitles the petitioner to invoke the aid of a court of equity to preserve said fund and prevent its dissipation as hereinafter pointed out. The county school superintendent is custodian of the common school fund, and he has said fund on deposit with the First National Bank. In addition, there is a balance due the county from the school fund appropriated by the state for the past several years, and the tax commissioner has on hand a large number of uncollected tax fi. fas. for the past several years in which there is included a five-mill tax levy for the common school fund of the county, all of which moneys, when collected, will be turned over to the superintendent of schools. The exact amount of these various components of the common school fund is unknown to petitioner, but can be readily ascertained by the defendants. It is the purpose of the board to apply all moneys now on hand and all moneys coming into their hands this year to the payment of liabilities created by the board for the current fiscal year; and on information and belief petitioner avers that such liabilities are sufficiently large to consume all of such funds. Before 1930 the board was heavily in debt, and during the years 1931 and 1932, when tax collections and money from the state were delayed, teachers and bus drivers were paid by the warrants sued upon. From and after the year 1932 the board so arranged their budget that they would consume all moneys received for each current fiscal year in the operation of the schools for that year, thus making it impossible to pay any creditors who had advanced money to the board in previous years. Payment of petitioner's claims has not been declined by the board, nor have the claims been repudiated; but at various times the board has used its funds to pay debts of more recent origin than those of petitioner. He does not know the exact amount of these claims alleged to have been paid. He is not able to show that the county school superintendent or the board now has on hand sufficient common school fund to pay his claims; and mandamus will not prevent the diversion of all available funds to the payment of liabilities of the board of more recent origin than those of petitioner. Discovery was waived. The prayers were for an order restraining the defendants from disbursing any of the funds on hand or to come into their hands until further order of the court; that the bank be required to answer under oath the amount of school funds on deposit; that all funds in the hands of any of the defendants or coming into their hands be impounded until it can be determined on what claims and in what proportion the funds should be applied; that petitioner's claims be paid out of any funds appropriated at any time for the purpose of operating the common schools of the county; for judgment upon the note and warrants; and for such further relief as the court may deem meet and proper. Demurrers to the petition were sustained, and the petitioner excepted.
1. The petitioner is seeking the aid of a court of equity in the collection of his claims against the school board, on the grounds that he has no adequate remedy at law for the collection thereof; that he has a legal right to compel the payment of the obligations on which he sues, but the processes of the law are inadequate to meet the exigencies of the situation as set forth in the petition. 'Equity jurisdiction is established and allowed for the protection and relief of parties, where, from any peculiar circumstances, the operation of the general rules of law would be deficient in protecting from anticipated wrong or relieving for injuries done.' Code, § 37-102. However 'Equity is ancillary, not antagonistic, to the law; hence equity follows the law where the rule of law is applicable, and the analogy of the law where no rule is directly applicable.' Section 37-103. The rule that equity follows the law has become the first maxim of equity (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summer v. Allison
... ... Page 182 ... Court of DeKalb County. Summer filed a defense on the ground that since the note had been levied ... 952; McConnell v. Floyd County, 164 Ga. 177(9), 137 S.E. 919; Lewis v. Bd. of Ed. of Lowndes County, 183 Ga. 687(1), ... Page 186 ... 189 ... ...
-
Glover v. Glover, 68223
...v. Jordan, 15 Ga. 76(1) (1854). Thus, equity cannot supersede the positive enactments of the legislature. Lewis v. Bd. of Education of Lowndes County, 183 Ga. 687, 690(1), 189 S.E. 233. 3. Relying upon Murchison v. Green, 128 Ga. 339, 343, 57 S.E. 709, plaintiff asserts the defendant cannot......
-
H.C.S. v. Grebel
...is no adequate remedy at law. See Jackson v. Balkcom, 210 Ga. 412, 80 S.E.2d 319 (1954). Hence I would find Lewis v. Bd. of Education, 183 Ga. 687 (1), 189 S.E. 233 (1936), cited by the majority in footnote 1, to be inapplicable. I therefore concur in the I am authorized to state that WELTN......
-
Concerned School Patrons & Taxpayers v. Ware County Bd. of Ed.
...of education can be disbursed except in accordance with a budget filed with the State Board of Education, Lewis v. Bd. of Ed. of Lowndes County, 183 Ga. 687, 189 S.E. 233 (1936), this does not mean that every expenditure must be a line item in the budget submitted. With respect to the year ......