Mccaskill v. Bower

• Decision Date: 17 August 1906
• Citation: 54 S.E. 942,126 Ga. 341
• Parties: McCASKILL et al. v. BOWER et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

54 S.E. 942

126 Ga. 341

McCASKILL et al.

v.BOWER et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 17, 1906.

1. Injunction—Exclusion of Pupil from School—Mandamus.

Where a pupil has been refused admission to a public school because of his failure to comply with an alleged illegal requirement of the trustees of the school, the remedy of his parent is by mandamus to compel the proper officer of the school to admit him, and not by injunction to restrain the enforcement of the alleged illegal requirement.

2. Same—Allegation of Injury.

Before a party is entitled to relief he must show injury, or at least that injury is threatened. The mere allegation by the parent of a schoolboy that the officers of a public school have passed an illegal regulation, which, if enforced, would work injury upon his son, does not entitle him to an injunction against such officers.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 27, Cent. Dig. Indictment and Information, § 9.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Decatur County; W. N. Spence, Judge.

Action by J. C. McCaskill and others against B. B. Bower and others, trustees. Judgment for defendants, plaintiffs bring error, and defendants assign cross-error.

Judgment on main bill affirmed, and crossbill dismissed.

Russell & Howes, for plaintiffs in error.

John R. Wilson and Powell & Pottle, for defendants in error.

BECK, J. McCaskill sought to restrain the superintendent and trustees of the public school of Bainbridge from refusing admission to that school to his two sons who had failed to comply with a rule or regulation under which each male pupil over four feet and six inches in height and between certain named ages is required to wear a uniform which costs the sum of $13, alleging in his petition that his sons came within the requirements of the rule as to age and height, and attacking the regulation as being unconstitutional in divers particulars. The defendants demurred to the petition, on various grounds, among them being that the plaintiff had mistaken his remedy; that he should have proceeded by petition for mandamus instead of praying for an injunction. During the progress of the hearing (which was had at chambers in vacation), McCaskill amended his petition, by alleging that after the grant of the temporary restraining order in the case, the board of trustees passed an amendment to the rule in question under the terms of which a uniform will be provided for any pupil coming within the requirements thereof who is, because of poverty, unable to purchase the same, upon satisfactory proof being made to the board by the parent or guardian of such pupil that such is the truth. McCaskill attacked this amendment in his amendment as void, because violative of the act under which the defendants hold office; and for the further reason that the rule, as amended, is contrary to several named provisions of the Constitution in reference to appropriation of money for school purposes. At the hearing certain parties, each having a son "attending the * * * school, coming within the requirements * * * as to uniform, " were made parties plaintiff by intervention. The only evidence introduced was an affidavit to the effect that a fairly good suit of clothes could be purchased for a boy coming within the provisions of the rule for the sum of $2.50, while $5 would buy a suit of such quality that the wearer would be "well dressed, and clothed as...