Proctor v. Hufnail
| Decision Date | 06 December 1940 |
| Citation | 16 A.2d 518 |
| Parties | PROCTOR et al. v. HUFNAIL et al., School Directors. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Proceeding by Basil N. Proctor and Ruth M. Proctor against Vanessa Hufnail and others, School Directors of the Town of Reading, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the defendant to furnish transportation to school for petitioners' son equal with facilities furnished other students living in the same vicinity, and also for an order on defendants to compensate petitioners for transportation furnished by petitioners for their son.
Petition dismissed.
Argued before MOULTON, C. J., and SHERBURNE, BUTTLES, STURTEVANT, and JEFFORDS, JJ.
Lee Tillotson, of Springfield, for plaintiffs.
E. E. Moore, of Ludlow, and Fred E. Gleason, of Montpelier, for defendants.
The petitioners, Basil N. Proctor and Ruth M. Proctor, are here seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the defendants, the board of school directors for the town of Reading, to furnish facilities for the transportation of their son Robert between his home and the school at Felchville in said town "equal with the facilities which are furnished other students of said school resident in the same vicinity". They also ask that said school board be ordered to pay to them reasonable and equitable compensation for such transportation as they have already furnished their said son between his home and said school.
From the findings the following facts appear :
The petitioners own a farm in said town located by road one and one-half miles westerly from Bailey's Mills at the end of a dead end highway. The distance from this farm to Bailey's Mills through the fields is about one mile. Petitioners have resided on this farm since May, 1937. Their son Robert is a normal boy twelve years of age and in good health. The first two years they lived at their present home Robert attended the school at Bailey's Mills, hereinafter referred to as the "old school". He did not attend here during the school year of 1939-40, but received home instruction from his mother. The town furnished no transportation to Robert while he attended the old school. At the beginning of the current school year the old school was discontinued and pupils in this vicinity were required to attend the school at Felchville, hereinafter referred to as the "new school".
About ten years ago the school directors of the town laid out a school bus route. While the driver of this route resides at Bailey's Mills and so starts from there, the route proper begins at a highway intersection about one mile northeasterly from Bailey's Mills, thence in a general northerly direction about one and one-half miles, thence southwesterly about one-third mile, thence southerly and southeasterly about one and one-half miles to the place of beginning, thence southwesterly about one mile to Bailey's Mills. This route is now and since it was laid out has been in use each school year. At the beginning of the present school year it was extended from Bailey's Mills to Felchville, a distance of about four and one-half miles. From the point of starting until the bus reaches Bailey's Mills the only pupils picked up are the Rowley children, who live about two miles from where the old school was located. One of these is a six year old girl and the other is her brother about thirteen years of age. The bus now transports twelve children to the new school, and all of these are picked up and discharged at their homes excepting the two Gibson children, the two girls of the ages of six and nine years who walk about one-fourth mile from their home to get the bus connection. The petitioners have refused the offer of the school directors to furnish transportation for Robert from Bailey's Mills to the new school and return, and have been transporting him from his home to and from the new school. This has been done under no contract or agreement with the school board. The school board have refused and now refuse to furnish transportation to Robert other than that offered as above stated because they are of the opinion that the partial transportation offered is all that is reasonable and necessary to enable him to attend the Felchville school. The bus connection now offered to Robert is practically in the same location as the old school which he attended three years ago. The opinion of the board of school directors that the partial transportation offered to Robert is all that is reasonable and necessary to enable him to attend the new school was formed by the school board in the exercise of their sound discretion, reasoning and best judgment. No reason appears from the evidence why Robert could not wait mornings for the bus at the home of some one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Glover v. Anderson
...ministerial but discretionary and the disposition of it made by the official will be binding upon the courts. Proctor v. Hufnail, 111 Vt. 365, 369, 16 A.2d 518. A decision that rests solely upon the construction of a statute does not involve that exercise of judgment which the law contempla......
-
the Menut & Parks Co. v. Village of St. Johnsbury
... ... Under such circumstances resort may be had to mandamus ... Sanborn v. Weir et al, 95 Vt. 1, 6, 112 A ... 228; Proctor v. Hufnail, 111 Vt. 369, 370, ... 16 A.2d 518. The fact that the petitionees entertained an ... erroneous opinion as to the application of those ... ...
-
Lewis v. Holden
...of the case involved in the proceedings below. Davidson v. Whitehill, 87 Vt. 499, 508, 89 A. 1081. The defendants cite Proctor v. Hufnail, 111 Vt. 365, 16 A.2d 518 and contend that in making his determination the commissioner of education exercised his discretion and his action cannot be re......
-
Roy v. Farr, 41-69
...of Town of Berkshire, 121 Vt. 359, 361, 159 A.2d 78; Carpenter's Admr. v. Brown, 118 Vt. 148, 152, 102 A.2d 331; Proctor v. Hufnail, 111 Vt. 365, 369, 16 A.2d 518. On the other hand, mandamus will lie to compel a public officer to perform an official act which is merely ministerial. Town of......