Norton v. Lakeside Special School District

• Decision Date: 12 December 1910
• Citation: 133 S.W. 184,97 Ark. 71
• Parties: NORTON v. LAKESIDE SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

133 S.W. 184

97 Ark. 71

NORTON v. LAKESIDE SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 12, 1910

Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court; James R. Yerger, Special Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

J. R Parker, for appellant.

OPINION

FRAUENTHAL, J.

By an act passed April 24, 1905, the General Assembly of the State created a special school district in Chicot County, known as Lakeside School District, and this act was amended by an act of the Legislature approved May 31, 1909, (Acts 1905, p. 486;Acts 1909, p. 924).In these legislative enactments the territory comprising this special school district was specifically described.In January, 1910, sixty or seventy persons residing in said Lakeside School District filed a joint petition in the county court asking for an order transferring their children from that school district to an adjoining school district for educational purposes.In said petition they alleged that, before the passage of said acts of the Legislature creating said special school district, the land upon which they resided formed a part of the adjoining school district, and that the legislative enactments were passed without their knowledge or consent.It was also alleged that M. M. Norton, one of the petitioners, was the owner of a large body of land situated in the special school district upon which some thirty or forty children resided, and next to said adjoining school district; and that O. B. Crittenden & Co., another petitioner, was the lessee of a large tract of land in said special district upon which a number of children resided; and in the petition it was asked that these lands be transferred from said special school district to the adjoining school district, on the ground that the children residing on those tracts of land were unable to attend the school located in the special district on account of the distance and other physical inconveniences, and because it was more convenient to them to attend the school located in the adjoining district.In said petition it was also alleged that the petitioners were citizens and property owners, and the petition concluded with the prayer: "And we, the undersigned fathers and property owners, do hereby most respectfully petition this honorable court to transfer our children" from the special district to the adjoining district.

The petition does not state who of the petitioners are the fathers of children, nor does it give the name of any child, or whether any of said children was of the required school age.But it appears affirmatively from the petition that the two petitioners who are the owners of practically all the land upon which the children reside have no children, and it can not be said from said petition who of the other petitioners has of does not have children.

Upon application the county court permitted the Lakeside School District to be made a party to the proceeding in which the petition was filed, and it sustained a demurrer interposed thereto; and the action of the county court in sustaining said demurrer to the petition was approved by the circuit court upon appeal therefrom; and we are now asked to reverse that judgment.

It is alleged in the petition that the Lakeside School District was created by acts of the Legislature passed without the knowledge or consent of the petitioners; but this could not affect the validity of such enactments.A school district is the creature of the Legislature or of some governmental agency named by the Legislature.The Legislature is primarily vested with the power to create school districts, and it may create or abolish a school district, or change the boundaries of those established for any reason that may be satisfactory to it.The Legislature may do this without consulting and without obtaining the assent of those persons who reside in the territory affected.35 Cyc. 833;AttorneyGeneral v. Lowrey, 131 Mich. 639, 92 N.W. 289;Garfield County School District v. Zediker,4 Okla. 599, 47 P. 482...