Sch. City of Terre Haute, of Vigo Cnty. v. Harrison Sch. Tp., of Vigo Cnty.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1916
• Docket Number: No. 22855.,22855.
• Citation: 184 Ind. 742,112 N.E. 514
• Parties: SCHOOL CITY OF TERRE HAUTE, OF VIGO COUNTY, v. HARRISON SCHOOL TP., OF VIGO COUNTY, et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

184 Ind. 742

112 N.E. 514

SCHOOL CITY OF TERRE HAUTE, OF VIGO COUNTY,

v.HARRISON SCHOOL TP., OF VIGO COUNTY, et al.

No. 22855.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 17, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; John M. Rawley, Judge.

Action by the School City of Terre Haute, of Vigo County, against the Harrison School Township, of Vigo County, and others. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the amended complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Davis, Bogart & Royse, of Terre Haute, for appellant. Peter M. Foley, Thomas F. O'Mara, Louis Leveque, and A. J. Kelley, all of Terre Haute, for appellees.

LAIRY, J.

The school city of Terre Haute brought this action against Harrison school township, both parties being school corporations located in Vigo county, Ind. The action arose out of an erroneous distribution by the auditor and treasurer of Vigo county of the school revenue of the state apportioned to that county for tuition purposes by the state superintendent of public instruction. In making the distribution of this fund among the school corporations of Vigo county, the auditor of that county apportioned it among them in such proportions as the children enumerated for school purposes in each of such school corporations bear to the whole number of school children enumerated in the county. By this means an equal per capita distribution of this fund was made with reference to the school population of the county, without regard to the congressional school revenue belonging to the several school corporations affected. The statute provides:

“In making the said apportionment and distribution thereof, the auditor shall ascertain the amount of the congressional township school revenue belonging to each city, town or township, and shall apportion the other school revenue, so as to equalize the amount of available school revenue for tuition to each city, town and township, as near as may be, according to the enumeration of children therein, and report the amount apportioned to the superintendent of public instruction, verified by affidavit.” Burns 1914, § 6475.

The Congress of the United States gave the sixteenth section of land in each congressional township to the inhabitants thereof for the support of common schools. These sections were of unequal value and on sale produced unequal amounts, even relating to the number of children of school age in such townships. The distribution of this fund is not, therefore, uniform; but, on account of the terms of the grant, the Legislature of the state has no power to change it. State v. Springfield, 6 Ind. 83;Quick et al. v. Whitewater Twp., 7 Ind. 570. The provisions of the statute require the auditors of the several counties of the state to take into account the congressional school revenue of each of the school corporations in making the distribution of the other tuition revenue of the state, and to apportion the latter fund in such a way as to make the aggregate amount from the two sources in each of such school corporations equal in proportion to the number of children of school age enumerated therein. By failing to take into account the congressional school revenue of the several school corporations of the county, the auditor of Vigo county distributed to some of such school corporations more of the tuition revenue received from the state than they were entitled to receive under the statute, and to others for the same reason he distributed less than they were entitled to receive. This erroneous distribution began with the January distribution in 1904, and was kept up to and including the July distribution of 1910. The tuition funds thus distributed were received by the various school corporations and expended by them for tuition within the years for which the several distributions were made. The complaint alleges that, during the period mentioned, more than $13,000 of these funds which should have been distributed to the school city of Terre Haute were erroneously distributed to other school corporations of Vigo county and expended by such corporations for tuition purposes. It is alleged that Harrison school township received more than its distributive share, and this action was brought to recover the part of such overpayment which, originally, should have been distributed to the school city of Terre Haute.

The questions presented on appeal arise upon the ruling of the court in sustaining the demurrer of appellee to the amended complaint. One of the grounds of demurrer, as stated in the memorandum filed therewith, is that section 6475, Burns 1914, is unconstitutional. It is well settled that this court will not determine a constitutional question, if its decision can rest upon other grounds. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Hollowell, 172 Ind. 466, 88 N. E. 680;Hewit v. State, 171 Ind. 283, 86 N. E. 63. If the decision of the trial court can be sustained on other grounds, it will be presumed that the complaint was held insufficient on those grounds, and not for the reason that the statute upon which appellant relies was unconstitutional.

Appellant seeks to uphold the complaint on the theory that the tuition revenue of the state, which is apportioned twice each year, belongs to the school corporations of the state, to which the statute provides it shall be distributed. It is asserted that the auditor of Vigo county held the fund apportioned to that county as a trustee for the various school corporations therein located, and that it was his duty to distribute it in accordance with the statute, and that a school corporation, which by mistake received and expended more than its distributive share, is liable as to such excess to other school corporations of the county which received less than their respective shares, which liability may be enforced in an action for money had and received. The proposition is thus stated in appellant's brief:

“Where a person has received funds which in equity and good conscience are the property of another, the person to whom the fund equitably belongs may recover from the person receiving the funds the amount by which the person receiving them has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the owner of the funds in an action for money had and received.”

It has always been the policy of this state to encourage education, upon the theory that knowledge and learning, generally diffused throughout, a community, is essential to the preservation of a free government. Constitution of Indiana 1816, art. 9, § 1. Section 2 of the same article of our first Constitution made it the duty of the General Assembly to provide by law for a general system of education, ascending in a regular gradation from township schools to a state university, wherein tuition should be gratis and equally open to all. The Constitution of 1851 made it the duty of the Legislature to provide for a general and uniform system of common free schools, and also provided for the creation, investment, and preservation of our common school fund, the income from which was to be inviolably appropriated to the support of common schools and to no other purpose. Based upon these provisions of the Constitution, and fostered by laws passed in pursuance thereof, our system of free common schools has developed until it has become a source of pride to every citizen of the state.

There can be no doubt that public education is a function of the state. The state in its sovereign capacity has a direct interest in the enlightenment and mental development of its citizens, to the end that free popular government may be preserved and may attain its highest efficiency. The school fund, from which the tuition revenue is derived, belongs to the state, and it is administered by the state in the exercise of its sovereign power for its own benefit. The school children are incidentally benefited; but the primary purpose of the state, in maintaining this fund and in expending its income in the education of its children, is to develop and secure to the state a moral, intellectual, and enlightened citizenship. While the fund and income therefrom constitutes a trust, in the sense that it must be devoted to the single purpose under the provision of the Constitution-that of maintaining common schools -still it is not a trust fund in the full sense of the word. In ordinary trusts, the legal title to trust property rests in the trustee, and the beneficial interest or equitable title is in the cestui que trust. Here the state holds the legal title to the fund and...