Noble v. White

• Decision Date: 17 December 1903
• Citation: 77 S.W. 678
• Parties: NOBLE v. WHITE.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

77 S.W. 678

NOBLE v. WHITE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 17, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Breathitt County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Hattie Lee White against Henry B. Noble, county superintendent.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.Affirmed.

R. F Peak and Jno.L.Noble, for appellant.

J. J C. Bach, Jno.E. Patrick, Kelley Kash, and Pollard & Redwine for appellee.

BURNAM C.J.

On the 5th day of July, 1902, the appellee, Hattie Lee White, contracted in writing with J. S. Cope and R. J. Fulkerson, alleged trustees of district No. 1, in the county of Breathitt, which at that time embraced the town of Jackson, to teach the common school of the district for the term of five months, beginning on the 14th of July, 1902, in accordance with the common school laws, and the rules and regulations prescribed in pursuance thereto, by the state board of education, for the amount of the public funds allotted to the district.On the 2d day of January, 1903, she brought this action against the appellant, H. B. Noble, the county superintendent, in which she alleged that she had fully complied with her contract with the district trustees in every particular; that the defendant had in his possession the public funds allotted for the payment of the teacher of the public school in that district, amounting to $1,325.04; and that she had repeatedly demanded of him to pay to her the amount due her, but that he had refused to pay any part thereof, and asked for a mandamus requiring him to perform his duty, and pay the amount coming to her.She also files as exhibits her contract with the trustees, and her monthly report as a teacher made to the county superintendent, and the trustees' certificate of the time she had taught.The defendant, H. B. Noble, in his answer denies that either J. S. Cope or R. J. Fulkerson were trustees of the district on the 5th of July, 1902, or had any power or authority to contract with plaintiff as teacher of the school district for the school year, or that plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for the public funds set apart to pay the teacher of the district in his hands.He admits that he had in his hands public funds for district No. 1 of Breathitt county to the amount of $447.48, and alleges that he also had in his hands $411.32 for district No. 93 of Breathitt county, making in the aggregate $858.80.He alleges that on the 21st of March, 1902, he divided the district into two districts, numbering one of them district No. 93, and that R. J. Fulkerson was a resident of district No. 93, and for this reason was disqualified from acting as trustee of district No. 1, and that on the 9th day of June, 1902, he had removed J. S. Cope as trustee on the grounds of immoral conduct, and asked that the plaintiff's petition be dismissed.The circuit judge, after the pleadings were made up and proof taken, decided that the attempted division by defendant of school district No. 1 in Breathitt county into two districts was illegal and void, and adjudged that defendant should pay to the plaintiff $858.80, the amount of public funds which he admitted he held for the teacher of the district school for that year, and defendant has appealed.

It appears from the testimony that the defendant, H. B. Noble was elected county superintendent of public schools for Breathitt county at the November election, 1901, and that his term of office began on the 1st day of January, 1902; that at this time common school district No. 1 was coextensive with the boundary lines of the village of Jackson; and that Thomas Cope, D. B. Cox, and J. S. Cope were the duly and regularly acting school trustees for the district.In October, 1901, R. J. Fulkerson was elected trustee for the district to succeed Thomas T. Cope, but his term of office did not begin until July 1, 1902.On the 21st day of March the defendant, Noble, undertook to divide the district into two districts, making Court street the dividing line.All that part of the town north of this street was to remain in district No. 1, and all of that part south was to be the new district No. 93.By...