Mitchell v. Directors of School Dist. No. 15

• Decision Date: 03 April 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 274.)
• Citation: 239 S.W. 371
• Parties: MITCHELL et al. v. DIRECTORS OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 15.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

239 S.W. 371

MITCHELL et al. v.DIRECTORS OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 15.

(No. 274.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 3, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; W. B. Sorrells, Judge.

Certiorari by F. P. Mitchell and others against Directors of School DistrictNo. 15.From a judgment for defendants on sustaining a demurrer to the petition, plaintiffs appeal.Reversed and remanded, with directions.

This proceeding was instituted in the circuit court by certiorari, by appellants against appellees, to review the action of the county board of education of Jefferson county, Ark., in taking from common school district No. 6 four sections of land and adding the same to common school district No. 15.

On the 21st day of May, 1921, the directors of school district No. 15 presented a petition to the county board of education of Jefferson county, Ark., asking that the boundary lines between school district No. 6 and school district No. 15 be changed so as to take four sections of land from school district No. 6 and add the same to school district No. 15.The petition was granted by said Board.

The directors of school district No. 6 allege that said petition did not contain a majority of the electors of either district No. 6 or district No. 15, or of both districts combined.They also allege that proper notice was not given, as required by law, prior to the filing of said petition with the board of education of Jefferson county, Ark.

The prayer of the petition is that the order of said board, changing the boundaries between said districts as aforesaid, be set aside and held for naught.

The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the petition, and the plaintiffs, who are the appellants here, electing to stand upon their demurrer, their complaint was dismissed, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants who are appellees in this court.

To reverse that judgment appellants have duly prosecuted this appeal.

Brockman & Lucas, of Pine Bluff, for appellants.

Caldwell, Triplett & Ross, of Pine Bluff, for appellees.

HART, J.(after stating the facts as above).

The Legislature of 1919, by Act 234, approved March 11, 1919, creates county boards of education, and section 4 of the act gives to said boards the direction and supervision of the public schools of their respective counties, and also provides that said board, among other powers granted, shall have the power to change the boundary lines between school districts.Section 4 of said act is section 8876 of Crawford & Moses' Digest.

Prior to the passage of the act of 1919 conferring jurisdiction upon the county board of education to change the boundary line between school districts, that power was granted to the county court.Section 7544 of Kirby's Digest.Section 8823 of Crawford & Moses' Digest simply substitutes the county board of education for the county court, in conformity with the transfer of the jurisdiction from the county court to the board of education, in forming new school districts and changing the boundaries of the old ones.

It is suggested that the Legislature was without power to make this change.This proposition has already been decided adversely to that contention by this court.This court has expressly held that the Legislature has the power to establish new school districts and to change the boundaries of those established for any reason that may be satisfactory to it.The court expressly said that, whatever power the Legislature has lawfully conferred upon county courts in these respects, it may take away and confer other agencies or tribunals.School District of Hartford v. W. Hartford Sp. Dist., 102 Ark. 261, 143 S. W. 895;Common School District No. 13 v. Oak Grove Special School District, 102 Ark. 411, 144 S. W. 224, andNorton v. Lakeside Special School District, 97 Ark. 71, 133 S. W. 184.

It is true that in none of these cases did the court discuss in its opinion the effect of article 7, section 28, of the Constitution of 1874, providing, among other things, that county courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over the internal improvements and local concerns of their respective counties.The effect of all our previous decisions, however, bearing on the subject, show that the court did not consider the jurisdiction to form school districts or to change the boundaries was conferred upon county courts under the provisions of the Constitution referred to, but that it has always been considered a purely statutory power.

In each of the cases cited above the court expressly held that a school district is a creature of the Legislature or some governmental agency named by the Legislature, and that the Legislature may create, alter, or abolish school districts at will.Under the statute, single school districts may be formed by incorporated towns in the manner provided by the statute, without the intervention of the county court.Beavers v. State, 60 Ark. 124, 29 S. W. 144.This could not be done if the section of the Constitution above referred to placed exclusive jurisdiction in the county court.Therefore, we are of the opinion that the act of the Legislature of 1919 conferring upon county boards of education the power to form new school districts or to alter the boundary lines of existing ones is valid and constitutional.

It is the contention of counsel for appellants that the action of the county board, in transferring the four sections of land from school district No. 6 to school district No. 15, is invalid because the notice required by section 8821 of Crawford & Moses' Digest was not given.That section provides, in substance, that notice of the proposed change shall be given in the form provided by the statute by posting the same 30 days before the convening of the court at which the petition shall be presented.

In Lewis v. Young, 116 Ark. 291, 171 S. W. 1197, this court held that the giving of the notice of change, as...