School District No. 141 In Sedgwick County v. The Board of County Commissioners of The County of Kingman

• Decision Date: 12 January 1929
• Docket Number: 28,391
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 141 in Sedgwick County, Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF KINGMAN, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

273 P. 427

127 Kan. 292

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 141 in Sedgwick County, Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF KINGMAN, Appellant

No. 28,391

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 12, 1929

Decided January, 1929.

Appeal from Kingman district court; GEORGE L. HAY, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. SCHOOLS--Tuition--Pupils Attending High Schools in Adjacent Counties. Under the provisions of the statute (R. S. 72-3014) a county is liable for the tuition of its high-school pupils who attend high school in a school district of an adjacent county.

2. SAME--Interest. Interest may not be recovered from a county except through express provision of statute.

Paul R Wunsch and H. E. Walter, both of Kingman, for the appellant.

Ed. T. Hackney, of Wellington, for the appellee.

OPINION

HOPKINS, J.:

The action was one by a school district in Sedgwick county to recover tuition from Kingman county for pupils who resided in Kingman county and attended high school (at Cheney) in Sedgwick county. Plaintiff prevailed and defendant appeals.

Trial was to the court. Material facts agreed to were substantially that Sedgwick county operates under the Barnes law (R. S. 72-3001 to 72-3022, with later amendments); that Cheney is located about a mile from the Sedgwick-Kingman line; is the center of school district No. 141, and maintains a high school, the graduates of which are entitled to admission to the freshman class of the schools of arts and sciences in the University of Kansas. That the pupils in question are bona fide residents of Kingman county, and all presented certificates signed by the superintendent of public instruction of Kingman county, certifying that they had completed the course of study for the eighth grade or passed examinations satisfactory to the high-school authorities of the plaintiff district. That all of them attended plaintiff's high school for the time in question. That the county superintendent of Sedgwick county approved the bills for tuition for 1924-'25 and 1925-'26 and recommended their payment. It was also agreed that there were rural high-school districts within Kingman county during the years in question and specifying their enrollment, where the pupils in question might have attended. That the taxable valuation of certain townships of Kingman county, where the pupils in question might have attended, was sufficient for the establishment of another rural high-school district. Also, that the students attending the plaintiff high school from Kingman county resided at distances from five to seven miles from the school; that some of them lived within from seven to nine miles of the Norwich rural high school in Kingman county, and some within ten miles of the high school at Kingman.

The defendant contends that under the provisions of the existing law (Laws of 1905, ch. 397), as subsequently amended, the students in question should have attended a high school maintained in the townships of Vinita and Evan in Kingman county. That in order for the plaintiff to maintain this action against Kingman county it should have shown that there were an insufficient number of students in such townships to organize and maintain another high school, and that the valuation of that territory was insufficient to maintain a high school. That the townships in question (two from which students attend the Cheney high school) have a valuation of something over two and a half million dollars, and that within their territory there were during the two years in question around sixty students of high-school age and attainment. A painstaking argument in support of the contention cannot be sustained because not in conformity with the requirements of the statute, which reads:

"That tuition shall be free in all high schools established pursuant to Laws 1905, ch. 397, as amended by later enactments, to pupils residing in the county where such high-school law is in force: Provided, That such pupils shall present to the high-school authorities an entrance certificate, signed by the county superintendent of public instruction, certifying that such pupil has completed the course of study prescribed by the state board of education for the pupil below the high school, or who shall pass such entrance examination as the high-school authorities may require: Provided further, That when pupils reside in an adjacent county that does not operate under the provisions of such high-school law established pursuant to Laws 1905, ch. 397, as amended by later enactments, the board of county commissioners of such adjacent county in which the pupils reside, shall, upon recommendation of the county superintendent of public instruction having jurisdiction over the high school where said pupils attend, pay the tuition of $ 2 per week, or fraction thereof, for such pupils to the district in which the high school is located: Provided further, That this act shall apply to all high-school pupils residing in any adjacent county that attend high school established under Laws 1905, ch. 397, as amended by later enactments: Provided further, That the...