People ex rel. Koontz v. Emmerson

• Decision Date: 28 October 1924
• Docket Number: No. 15637.,15637.
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. KOONTZ et al. v. EMMERSON et al., Board of Education.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

313 Ill. 209

145 N.E. 106

PEOPLE ex rel. KOONTZ et al.

v.EMMERSON et al., Board of Education.

No. 15637.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 28, 1924.

Petition by the People, on the relation of Charles Koontz and others, for leave to file information in the nature of quo warranto against E. B. Emmerson and others, as the Board of Education of Fairfield Community High School District No. 225. From a judgment denying leave, petitioners appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; J. C. Eagleton, judge.

Roscoe Forth, State's Atty., of Fairfield, and Theodore G. Risley and Ben H. Townsend, both of Mt. Carmel, for appellants.

H. S. Burgess and Virgil W. Mills, both of Fairfield, for appellees.

DUNCAN, C. J.

The circuit court of Wayne county denied leave to the people to file an information against appellees, the board of education of Fairfield community high school district No. 225, and rendered judgment for costs against the relators, Charles Koontz and ten others, citizens, residents and taxpayers of the school district.

The petition for leave to file the information was presented to the judge in vacation on March 8, 1923, and charged, in substance, that the territory comprised within the pretended district did not consist of compact and contiguous territory as defined by the decisions of this court; that it contained a total area of 108 sections of land, including the city of Fairfield, which has a population of about 2,500 and which is the community center; that the distance on a straight line from Fairfield to the northeast corner of the district is about 7 miles, from the southwest corner thereof to Fairfield about 8 1/2 miles, from the northwest corner about 7 miles, and from the southeast corner about 7 1/2 miles; that there are a number of high school pupils in the district who are required to travel over dirt roads to attend school as far as 13 or 14 miles; that the west 6 miles of the district is 8 miles north and south by 6 miles east and west, and that the east 6 miles of the district is 6 miles east and west by 10 miles north and south; that the city of Fairfield is located immediately south and southeast of the point where the four townships of the district corner; that a part of the territory of the district, approximately 7,000 or 8,000 acres, lying near the southwest corner, is low, marshy land and forms an immense swamp; that because of the hills immediately southwest of Skillet Fork creek, which cuts across said corner, the flood waters which frequently occur during the school terms are forced to the north of the creek and form a vast lake of water on the low, swampy land of the district; that high school pupils living in that part of the district south of the swamp during the winter months cannot attend the school at all, because the roads leading to Fairfield become impassable for ordinary and usual country travel, and such pubils are deprived of the advantages and benefits of the high school during a considerable part of the school term; that the public roads leading from all the remote parts of the district are ordinanry dirt roads, and become so bad in winter and during wet weather and other times that, on account of the long distances to travel to the high school, the pupils in such remote parts cannot travel to and from school from their homes, and are compelled to board and lodge at or near the school center of Fairfield at great expense in order to attend the high school.

On the presentation of the petition, both the appellants and appellees were represented by their attorneys, and the judge entered a rule that a hearing on the petition be set for the first day of the following June term of the court, for the purpose of determining whether or not leave should be granted to file the information. Both parties appeared at said term, and appellees presented a number of affidavits denying the allegations of the petition, to the effect that the territory was not compact and contiguous. There was no denial of the attempted organization of the territory into the high school district aforesaid or that the territory was not properly described in the petition. Appellees very pointedly, by their affidavits, denied all of the alleged conditions of the district and of the roads thereof, and the affidavits filed by them contained other allegations tending to show that the territory of the high school district and the high school center were reasonably accessible to all the pupils of the district, and that such pupils could attend the high school by traveling to and from their homes. The relators also filed a number of affidavits which strongly supported the allegations in the petition.

In the affidavits filed by appellees, they set forth facts by which they contend that the relators are estopped to make the charges and contentions set forth in their petition, and are not entitled to have leave to file the information, to the effect that the election to vote upon the proposition of organizing the territory into a community high school district was had on January 10, 1920; that there were 948 votes for, and 195 votes against, such organization; that on January 24, 1920, the board of education was elected for the district; that on March 13, 1920, the proposition of issuing bonds in the sum of $115,000 to build a high school building was voted upon, 349 votes being cast for, and 53 votes against, issuing the bonds; that on March 27, 1920, the district voted to build the high school building and purchase a school site, at which election 848 votes were for, and 64 votes were against, the proposition of building, and 848 votes for the purchase of a site and 52 votes against and that a school site was selected; that the board of education has levied and collected $30,000 taxes, established a high school and employed teachers, and the high school has been conducted...