Mccormick v. Burt
| Decision Date | 17 March 1880 |
| Citation | 95 Ill. 263,1880 WL 10033,35 Am.Rep. 163 |
| Parties | EDWARD MCCORMICKv.CORA BURT et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. N. J. PILLSBURY, Judge, presiding.
Mr. C. C. STRAWN, and Mr. A. E. AMSBARY, for the appellant.
Mr. L. E. PAYSON, and Mr. S. S. LAWRENCE, for the appellees.
This was an action on the case, brought by Edward McCormick against Cora Burt and the directors of the school she was teaching, to recover damages on account of his suspension by the directors from the benefits of the school for the non-observance of a rule adopted by them for the government of the school. The substance of the rule adopted is, the teacher might read as an opening exercise every morning, not occupying more than fifteen minutes, a chapter from the King James translation of the bible. No one was required to be present at or participate in such exercise unless he chose to do so, and while such exercise was being conducted every pupil was required to lay aside his books and remain quiet. Plaintiff was a Catholic, and for the non-observance of the rule, which it is alleged was void, as interfering with the religious convictions of the plaintiff and his father, by pursuing his usual studies without noise or disturbance, he was suspended from “all the rights and privileges of said school until he should express a willingness to comply with the rule.” A general demurrer was sustained to the declaration, and plaintiff having elected to stand by his declaration, judgment was rendered against him for costs.
By section 48 of the school law the directors of each school district are made a body politic and corporate, and, among other things, it is made their duty to “adopt and enforce all necessary rules and regulations for the management and government of schools, * * * * to direct what branches of study shall be taught and what text-books and apparatus shall be used in the several schools,” and “they may suspend or expel pupils for incorrigibly bad conduct, and no action shall lie against them for such expulsion or suspension.”
In the performance of the duties imposed by law upon school directors they must exercise judgment and discretion. What rules and regulations will best promote the interests of the school under their immediate control, and what branches shall be taught and what text-books shall be used, are matters left to the determination of the directors, and must be settled by them from the best lights they can obtain from any source, keeping always in view the highest good of the whole school. Good order can only be maintained by enforcing discipline, and that power is largely committed to the directors. They have the power of suspension or expulsion, and they may exercise that power as a means of discipline for the causes mentioned in the statute. The expulsion or suspension of a pupil from the benefits and privileges of the school for what is considered “incorrigibly bad conduct,” implies deliberation and decision on the part of the directors, or, as it is sometimes expressed, they act judicially, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Strickland 8212 1285
...us.' 341 U.S., at 376, 71 S.Ct., at 788. 9 See Donahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 379 (1854); Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66 Mo. 286 (1877); McCormick v. Burt, 95 Ill. 263 (1880); Board of Education of Cartersville v. Purse, 101 Ga. 422, 28 S.E. 896 (1897); Board of Ed. of City of Covington v. Booth, 110 ......
-
Tcherepnin v. Franz
...not resulting from malicious or corrupt motives. People ex rel. Schreiner v. Courtney, 380 Ill. 171, 43 N.E.2d 982 (1942); McCormick v. Burt, 95 Ill. 263 (1880); Gilbert v. Bone, 64 Ill. 518 (1872); Anderberg v. Newman, 5 Ill.App.3d 736, 283 N.E.2d 904 (1st Dist. 1972); Paoli v. Mason, 325 ......
-
People ex rel. Ring v. Bd. of Educ. of Dist. 24
...religious meetings is not forbidden by the Constitution. Nichols v. School Directors, 93 Ill. 61, 34 Am. Rep. 160. In McCormick v. Burt, 95 Ill. 263, 35 Am. Rep. 163, it was held that school directors, acting in good faith and not maliciously, are not answerable in damages for the expulsion......
-
Andrews v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi.
...positions." Midamerica Trust Co. v. Moffatt , 158 Ill. App. 3d 372, 376, 110 Ill.Dec. 787, 511 N.E.2d 964 (1987) (citing McCormick v. Burt , 95 Ill. 263, 266 (1880) ). ¶ 40 As noted in the most recent edition of Prosser and Keaton on Torts, discretionary governmental immunity is also premis......