Rulison v. Frances S. Post.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 79 Ill. 567,1875 WL 8690 |
| Parties | HENRY RULISON et al.v.FRANCES S. POST. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Winnebago county; the Hon. WILLIAM BROWN, Judge, presiding.
Mr. WILLIAM LATHROP, for the appellants.
Mr. D. P. JONES, for the appellee.
It appears that on the 25th day of April, 1871, appellee was a pupil in the common school in district No. 1, in township 28 north, of range 10 east, in Winnebago county; that she resided with her parents in the district, and was entitled to the benefits and privileges of the school; but on that day she was expelled from the school and its privileges. The expulsion was by the use of force employed by the principal teacher, under the direction of the directors of the school district.
By the course of study prescribed by the directors, appellee was in the class that was required to study book-keeping, as a part of the prescribed course of education in the school. She had been, by the principal of the school, directed to procure books for the purpose, but declined, as she says and the jury have found, because her parents objected to her pursuing that study. She and her parents were notified, that unless she complied with the requirement she would be expelled from the privileges of the school. On the morning of the day the expulsion occurred, having failed to obtain the books, and having as usual gone to the school house, without them, she was notified that her rights there as a pupil had ceased, and she was requested to leave, but declining, the principal took hold of her and led or pushed her out of the building. Having returned to the room, and the seat she was accustomed to occupy, she was taken therefrom and ejected in the same manner from the building. The principal, on both occasions, pulled or pushed her from the room, through the door, down the first flight of stairs and out of the door to a landing, outside of the building. No bodily injury is claimed to have been inflicted. She was sixteen years of age, and her parents claim, and she testified, that her health was not good at the time of this occurrence, and that she was receiving lessons in music, on the piano, outside of the school, with a view of becoming a teacher of music. She was expelled from the school house in the presence of other pupils and scholars. She did not again return to the school, nor does it appear that she would have been permitted to do so had she desired.
She instituted an action of trespass against the directors and the principal of the school, and, on a trial in the court below, the jury found a verdict in her favor, and assessed the damages at $130. A motion for a new trial was entered by defendants, but it was overruled by the court, and a judgment was rendered on the verdict, and they appeal.
The 18th section of the School Law of 1865 (Sess. Laws, p. 119), under which these directors derived their powers and were then acting, provides that the school directors “may direct what branches of study shall be taught, and what text books shall be used in their respective schools, and may suspend or expel pupils for disobedient, refractory or incorrigibly bad conduct.” The next section provides that no teacher shall be authorized to teach a school under that act who is not qualified to teach orthography, reading in English, penmanship, arithmetic, English grammar, modern geography and the history of the United States; and the same section requires that such teacher shall be examined by the county superintendent of schools, and if found to be qualified shall be given a certificate of that fact. The same section contains this proviso: “That nothing herein contained shall prevent the teaching in the common schools of other and higher branches than those enumerated in this section.”
From these enactments it is manifest that it was the design of the law makers that all of the children of the State should be afforded an opportunity to acquire, free of charge, a knowledge of the enumerated branches required to be taught. All concede the importance as well as the necessity for every person acquiring at least that amount of education, when they have the capacity to receive it. It is to that extent demanded for the well being of society, and the General Assembly have provided ample means for the purpose. The directors, under the statute, are required, in their several districts, to provide the necessary schools to accommodate all children of the district, of proper age, and to employ suitable teachers, levy taxes to support the schools, and perform other necessary duties in carrying out this great purpose of the State in giving that amount of education to its children.
In the performance of their duty in carrying the law into effect, the directors may prescribe proper rules and regulations for the government of the schools of their district, and enforce them. They may, no doubt, classify the scholars, regulate their studies and their deportment, the hours to be taught, besides the performance of other duties necessary to promote the success and secure the well-being of such schools. But all such rules and regulations must be reasonable, and calculated to promote the objects of the law--the conferring of such an education upon all, free of charge. The law having conferred upon each child of proper age the right to be taught the enumerated branches, any rule or regulation which, by its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bennett
...of Ed., 78 Cal.App.2d 464, 480, 178 P.2d 488 (1947); School Bd. Dist. No. 18 v. Thompson, 24 Okla. 1, 4, 103 P. 578 (1909); Rulison v. Post, 79 Ill. 567, 573 (1875).8 "While the parents contend, and we agree, that they possess a basic right in directing the education of their children, such......
-
Sheridan Road Baptist Church v. Department of Educ.
...of Ed., 78 Cal.App.2d 464, 480, 178 P.2d 488 (1947); School Bd. Dist. No. 18 v. Thompson, 24 Okla. 1, 4, 103 P. 578 (1909); Rulison v. Post, 79 Ill. 567, 573 (1875). See also People v. Levisen, supra, 404 Ill. at 577, 90 N.E.2d 213.That parents should have the prior right, and primary role,......
-
People v. Bennett
...of Ed., 78 Cal.App.2d 464, 480, 178 P.2d 488 (1947); School Bd. Dist. No. 18 v. Thompson, 24 Okla. 1, 4, 103 P. 578 (1909); Rulison v. Post, 79 Ill. 567, 573 (1875).8 "While the parents contend, and we agree, that they possess a basic right in directing the education of their children, such......
-
Board of Ed. v. Purse
...This parental duty is strongly and persuasively inculcated by the writers on natural law." 2 Kent, Comm. 195, 196. In the case of Rulison v. Post, 79 Ill. 567, Mr. Justice Walker the opinion says: "Parents and guardians are under the responsibility of preparing children intrusted to their c......
-
The Parent as (mere) Educational Trustee: Whose Education Is It, Anyway?
...No. 1, 31 Neb. 552, 48 N.W. 393 (Neb. 1891). 279. Thompson, 103 P. at 582. 280. Tiedeman, supra note 52, at vii. 281. Cf. Rulison v. Post, 79 Ill. 567, 573 (Ill. 1875) ("Parents and guardians are under the responsibility of preparing children intrusted to their care and nurture, for the dis......