Perkins v. Bd. of Dirs. of the Indep. Sch. Dist. of W. Des Moines
Decision Date | 20 June 1880 |
Citation | 56 Iowa 476,9 N.W. 356 |
Parties | PERKINS, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WEST DES MOINES. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Polk circuit court.
Mandamus to compel defendants to admit plaintiff into the public school of their district. A demurrer to plaintiff's petition was sustained and judgment rendered for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.Barcroft & McCaughan, for appellant.
Brown & Dudley, for appellees.
The petition alleges that the plaintiff is a minor, of the age of 12 years, and resides within the bounds of the school district of which defendants are directors; that, under the law, he has a right to attend defendants' school, and did so attend until the superintendent, in obedience to an order of defendants, refused him admittance thereto; and that he is a person of good moral character, and has not been guilty of gross immorality nor of the persistent violation of any rule of the school. The petition shows that plaintiff was expelled from the school upon the following grounds:
1. The plaintiff alleges that defendants have no authority to enforce the rules under which he was excluded from the school, and that the action of the defendants in expelling him is unjust and oppressive, and in violation of his rights. To the petition defendants demurred on the grounds (1) that the court has no jurisdiction of the cause of action set out in the petition, the law creating a special tribunal to which plaintiff should appeal from the action of the board of directors; (2) the facts stated in the petition do not show the rule under which plaintiff was expelled from school to be unreasonable or unlawful, and in excess of the authority of the defendants in the government of the school.
2. We shall first inquire whether the circuit court has jurisdiction of this action. The statute provides that any person aggrieved by any order or decisionof the directors of a school district may appeal to the county superintendent, and from him an appeal may be prosecuted to the superintendent of public instruction. Code, §§ 1829, 1835. We need not inquire to what class of cases, wherein the directors may make decisions and orders, appeals to the county superintendent are limited. That they are limited is very plain. It cannot be held that decisions and orders refusing the allowance and payment of claims against the district, or construing contracts, or affecting the possession of or right to property, when the interest of a citizen is affected thereby, may not be questioned except upon appeal. That many such decisions and orders cannot be reviewed under the statutes quoted, upon appeal, must be conceded. It is not necessary to inquire just what class may be appealed to the county superintendent, and in what cases original actions may be prosecuted in the courts. It is very plain that in one class of cases appeals are not the exclusive remedy for reviewing or assailing the decisions and orders of the school directors.
This class includes all cases wherein the jurisdiction and power of the directors are brought in question, and wherein questions arise involving the construction of statutes conferring power upon school officers. The courts of the state are the arbiters of all questions involving the construction of the statutes conferring authority upon officers and jurisdiction upon special tribunals. It was certainly never the intention of the legislature to confer upon school boards, superintendents of schools, or other officers discharging quasi judicial functions, exclusive authority to decide questions pertaining to their jurisdiction and the extent of their power. All such questions may be determined in the courts of the state. Hence, when the rights of a citizen are involved in the exercise of authority by a school officer, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. Hoffman
... ... 37 (120 P. 861); ... Denny v. Des Moines County, 143 Iowa 466, at 474, ... 121 N.W. 1066; ... v. Directors of the Ind. School Dist., 40 Iowa 518, and ... Dove v. Independent ... color. In Perkins v. Board of Directors, 56 Iowa ... 476, 9 N.W ... ...
-
Lee v. Hoffman
...Iowa, 518, and the Dove Case, 41 Iowa, 689, also deal wholly with the right to exclude pupils because of their color. In Perkins v. Board, 56 Iowa, 476, 9 N. W. 356, what is, in effect, condemned is a rule which would exclude a pupil because damages for breaking a window were not paid. It i......
-
Hobbs v. Germany
... ... 11 N.E. 605; Kinzer v. Independent School Dist. (Kinzer ... v. Toms), 129 Iowa 441, 3 L. R. A ... School Dist., 56 Iowa 321, 69 N.W. 544; Perkins v ... Independent School Dist., 56 Iowa 476, 9 ... ...
-
Kinzer v. Dirs. of Indep. Sch. Dist. of Marion
...is subject to inquiry in the courts, and the party complaining is not limited to an appeal to the county superintendent. Perkins v. Directors, 56 Iowa, 476, 9 N. W. 356;Hinkle v. Sadler, 97 Iowa, 526, 66 N. W. 765;Rodgers v. Independent School Dist., 100 Iowa, 317, 69 N. W. 544. This is in ......