Sch. Directors v. Trustees of Sch.

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WALKER
• Citation: Sch. Directors v. Trustees of Sch., 66 Ill. 247, 1872 WL 8553 (Ill. 1872)
• Decision Date: 30 September 1872
• Parties: SCHOOL DIRECTORS et al.v.TRUSTEES OF SCHOOLS et al.

66 Ill. 247

1872 WL 8553 (Ill.)

SCHOOL DIRECTORS et al.

v.TRUSTEES OF SCHOOLS et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1872.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. CHARLES H. WOOD, Judge, presiding.

Mr. CHARLES J. BEATTIE, for the appellants.

Mr. L. E. PAYSON, for the appellees. Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, filed by appellants, in the Livingston circuit court, against the school trustees of township 28 north, of range 8 east, and the township treasurer, to restrain him from paying money collected from lands in certain sections to certain districts named in the bill, and to set aside the action of the trustees in re-districting the township. It appears that in 1869, the school trustees, under the statute, divided the township into nine school districts. But afterwards, at their regular annual meeting in 1870, they re-districted the township into seven districts, thus virtually abolishing two and annexing the territory composing them to other districts. But it is urged that this last division of the town was not according to the wishes, and did not suit the convenience of a majority of the inhabitants of the township.

The trustees have power under the school law to district, and it is made their duty to district their townships into proper divisions to suit the wishes and convenience of a majority of the inhabitants thereof, for school purposes. And, as was said in the case of the School Inspectors v. The People ex rel. 20 Ill. 551, the trustees, or those having the power to form school districts, are vested with a large discretion in the performance of these important duties, and courts will not attempt to control its exercise except in a palpable case, where a plain violation of law is manifested. Again, in the case of Metz v. Anderson, 23 Ill. 463, the court said: “The record shows that this consolidation of districts, which is no more than a change of the districts, was at the regular October meeting, held for the purpose of equalizing certain districts. The alterations and change are, and must be, peculiarly within the control of the board, and if they err in their action, no fraud or corruption being charged, this court can not interfere. No palpable case is made out--no gross injustice, oppression or corruption is shown.” These decisions settle the question of the power of the board to exercise its discretion in such cases without the interference of the courts, unless fraud, corruption, oppression or gross injustice is palpably shown. The bill in this case contains in general terms the necessary charges, but they are denied by the answer. And we have no hesitation in saying that the evidence on the...