Nichols v. the Sch. Directors
| Decision Date | 30 September 1879 |
| Citation | 34 Am.Rep. 160,93 Ill. 61,1879 WL 8580 |
| Parties | JAMES H. NICHOLSv.THE SCHOOL DIRECTORS, etc. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. N. J. PILLSBURY, Judge, presiding.
Mr. L. E. PAYSON, for the appellant.
Mr. W. T. AMENT, and Mr. S. S. LAWRENCE, for the appellees.
This was a bill for an injunction by complainant as a citizen, tax-payer and freeholder of the school district of which defendants were directors, to restrain them from allowing the school house of that district to be used by any society or organization for the purpose of a religious meeting house.
The grievance as set forth in the bill is, that the defendants have, as such directors, given permission to different church organizations to hold religious services in the school house, against the protest of complainant and other tax-payers of the district; that under this permission some of the church organizations purpose holding stated meetings in the school house; that by this means complainant is compelled to aid in furnishing a house of worship, and for religious meetings, contrary to the law of the land; that he is opposed to such use of the house by the societies, and that such meetings are about to be held in the same contrary to his wishes, wherefore he prays the injunction.
A demurrer was filed to the bill, which the circuit court sustained, and dissolved the temporary injunction which had been granted, and dismissed the bill. The complainant appealed to this court.
By statute, the supervision and control of school houses is vested in the school directors of the district, and “who may grant the temporary use of school houses, when not occupied by schools, for religious meetings and Sunday schools, for evening schools and for literary societies, and for such other meetings as the directors may deem proper.” Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 958, § 39.
There is clearly sufficient warrant in the statute, if that be valid, for the action of the school directors.
But the statute is assailed as being unconstitutional.
The clauses of the constitution which are pointed out as being supposed to be violated by this statute are the following only:
“No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.” Art. 2, § 3.
Art. 8, § 3, forbidding, among other public bodies, the General Assembly or any school district from ever making any appropriation or paying from any public fund whatever anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, etc.; and forbidding the State or any public corporation from making any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property to any church or for any sectarian purpose. “All lands, moneys, or other property, donated, granted or received for school, college, seminary or university purposes,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People ex rel. Ring v. Bd. of Educ. of Dist. 24
-
People ex rel. Vollmar v. Stanley
... ... plain meaning is that no one can be required to support or ... attend such a place (Nichols v. School Directors, 93 Ill. 61, ... 34 Am.Rep. 160). The situation before the convention was that ... ...
-
Beard v. Board of Education of North Summit School Dist.
... ... "The courts will not interfere with the exercise of ... discretion by school directors in matters confided by law to ... their judgment, unless there is a clear abuse of the ... Board ... of Trustees , supra; for religious services and similar ... uses, Nichols v. School Directors , 93 Ill ... 61, 34 Am. Rep. 160, Townsend v. Hagan , 35 ... Iowa 194, ... ...
-
People ex rel. Vollmar v. Stanley
... ... plain meaning is that no one can be required to support or ... attend such a place (Nichols v. School Directors, 93 Ill. 61, ... 34 Am.Rep. 160). The situation before the convention was that ... ...