Patrick v. Maybank

Citation17 S.E.2d 530,198 S.C. 262
Decision Date17 November 1941
Docket Number15329.
PartiesPATRICK et al. v. MAYBANK et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

district to withdraw from consolidated district created by special act of the Legislature and resume its status as a common school district, where it appeared state board was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal from action of county board, proceedings before state board were vacated without prejudice to the determination of the matter in controversy by any court of competent jurisdiction. Code 1932, §§ 5288, 5348, 5350; Act April 5, 1930, 36 St. at Large, p. 1757.

T K. McDonald and Douglas & Douglas, all of Winnsboro, for petitioners.

John M. Daniel, Atty. Gen., and M. J. Hough and T. C. Callison Asst. Attys. Gen., Hemphill & Hemphill, of Chester, and H. N. Obear, of Winnsboro, for respondents.

L. D LIDE, Acting Associate Justice.

By an act approved April 5, 1930, (Acts 1930, No. 977, 36 St. at Large, page 1757), the General Assembly provided that five certain school districts in Fairfield County, including White Oak School District No. 3, should be consolidated into one school district "to be known as Blackstock School District No. 34, Fairfield County, South Carolina." And it appears that some time in the year 1936 a request by certain interested persons was made of the County Board of Education of Fairfield County for the withdrawal from this consolidation of the former White Oak School District, but the County Board refused the request, whereupon an appeal was taken to the State Board of Education, which on January 8, 1937, affirmed the action of the County Board; and that effort to dissolve the consolidation ended. But at a meeting of the County Board which was held on or about June 28, 1940, the following action was taken as shown by the minutes of the Board: "The petition by certain residents of School District No. 3 (White Oak) that they be permitted to withdraw from affiliation with Blackstock School District No. 34 was taken up. On motion it was decided to grant the request, and that beginning with the school year 1940, White Oak School District No. 3 should return to the status it occupied previous to its affiliation with Blackstock."

Thereupon an appeal was taken in behalf of certain citizens, residents, taxpayers and school patrons to the State Board of Education from the aforesaid action of the County Board of Education, and the notice of appeal was filed with the State Board on or about July 26, 1940. This appeal among other things questions the jurisdiction of the County Board to dissolve or disrupt the Blackstock School District which had been consolidated pursuant to the act of the General Assembly above referred to; and one of the grounds of the appeal alleges that the County Board had no right or jurisdiction to re-establish the former White Oak School District No. 3 without having before it any petition "such as is required by law."

This appeal first came on to be heard before the State Board of Education on September 17, 1940, when the following action was taken by the State Board, as recorded in the minutes:

"This appeal from the decision of the Fairfield County Board of Education was based on the action of the County Board of Education of Fairfield County releasing White Oak School District from their consolidation with Blackstock School District. The consolidation was effected by legislative enactment and not by the county board of education. These people asked for a release from the decision of the county board of education.

"Mr. Hemphill, representing two-thirds of the people of what used to be White Oak District, stated that these people had heard nothing of a petition having been circulated and had no opportunity to appear before the County Board of Education. He asked that in order to get the action of the County Board of Education in proper shape, that the State Board reverse the findings of the County Board, so that all parties can be heard.

Mr. Easterling moved that the case be remanded to the County Board of Education in order that written testimony be taken and the case brought to the State Board of Education; further, that the two attorneys present, together with Mr. Hope confer with the Attorney General as to the legality of the Board taking such action, and the drawing up of proper papers. Under no circumstances shall the case be reversed unless there is no other way out, according to the Attorney General."

It appears, nevertheless, that the status of the matter remained unchanged until August 5, 1941, on which date a meeting of the State Board was held and there was then presented to that Board "as and for the purported petition" on which the County Board "was purported to have acted on June 28, 1940," an unsigned instrument in the form of a carefully prepared petition that the former White Oak School District No. 3 be permitted to withdraw from Blackstock School District No. 34, which evidently contemplated the signatures of qualified electors of the territory involved, but there were no signatures whatever. There was, however, also filed on that day with the State Board a letter dated at White Oak, S.C., August 25, 1939, addressed to Mr. W. W. Turner, who was the County Superintendent of Education, and signed by thirteen persons. The signers do not describe themselves as electors or otherwise, nor do they state in specific terms the purpose of the letter, but they say: "We want out of the consolidation," and they refer to a request made of the County Board "some days ago." There was also filed with the State Board at the same time a petition addressed to the County Board by a number of persons recited to be citizens, residents, electors and parents of children of former White Oak School District No. 3, requesting the County Board not to disturb the consolidation, stating that they preferred that the school children attend Blackstock School. But this petition was dated October 11, 1940, and was of course subsequent to the action of the County Board taken at their meeting held on June 28, 1940.

At the meeting of the State Board of Education which was held on August 5, 1941, the record shows that the following action was taken:

"After a lengthy discussion of the matter by both sides of the case, and after due consideration, the State Board of Education reversed the action of the Fairfield County Board of Education. The Board took the position in this matter that the District was set up by legislative enactment; therefore the State Board of Education, which is an appellate body, has no jurisdiction in the matter, and the District will have to be dissolved in the same manner in which it was set up.

"The joint high school district between Fairfield and Chester Counties will have to be dissolved by joint action of the county boards of education of Chester and Fairfield Counties."

The petitioners above named thereafter presented to Honorable Taylor H. Stukes, one of the associate justices of this court, a petition setting forth among other things the action of the State Board at their meeting held August 5, 1941, and alleging that the judgment and decision of the State Board is void and erroneous for certain reasons therein specified and praying that a writ of certiorari be issued commanding the board to certify the record in the proceedings to this court, and that the alleged judgment and decision be reversed and set aside. On this petition a writ of certiorari was issued by Mr. Justice Stukes, dated September 1, 1941, returnable in due time, so that the cause might be argued at the October term, 1941; whereupon the State Board of Education made its return to the writ, setting forth among other things in substance the facts above stated and the records above referred to. And in this return it is averred on information and belief that there never was before the County Board of Education of Fairfield County "on June 28, 1940, any legal petition signed by at least one-third of the qualified electors so that said County Board was without any jurisdiction or right to pass any such resolution as the minutes thereof show as aforesaid."

There was also a supplemental return made to the writ by the State Board wherein is set forth a report signed by the County Board of Education to the effect that during the summer of 1939, there was presented to the County Board a petition "praying, in substance, that School District No. 3 of Fairfield County be re-established as a common school district of said County." This report further states that the petition was finally heard by the County Board on or about June 27, 1940, at a meeting at which all members were present, and that at this meeting "it was determined that said petition was signed by more than one-third of the qualified electors embraced within the limits of the proposed School District." (This is, of course, the same meeting referred to elsewhere in the record as having been held on June 28, 1940.) But no copy of the petition was furnished and the names of the qualified electors alleged to have signed it were not given.

This report of the County Board, moreover, appears not even to have been before the State Board at the meeting which was held on August 5, 1941, for the State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • US v. Charleston County School Dist., Civ. A. No. 2:81-0050-8
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • June 5, 1990
    ...and corporate under the laws of this State and constitutes one of our most important political subdivisions...." Patrick v. Maybank, 198 S.C. 262, 17 S.E.2d 530, 534 (1941); see also § 21-111 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1952 and 1962 (§ 59-17-10 of the 1976 Code). This important ......
  • Moseley v. Welch
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 19, 1946
    ... ... this State and constitutes one of our most important ... political subdivisions' ( Patrick v. Maybank et ... al., 198 S.C. 262, 17 S.E.2d 530, 534), but the scope of ... the self-government to be had in such district is left to the ... ...
  • Turner v. Joseph Walker School Dist. 9
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 7, 1949
    ...support of their contention that the Court of Common Pleas is vested with appellate jurisdiction, they cite the case of Patrick v. Maybank, 198 S.C. 262, 17 S.E.2d 530, the case of School Dist. No. 60 of Williamsburg County v. Montgomery, 150 S.C. 391, 148 S.E. 218. But these cases are in n......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT