Schuler v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 28 October 1926
• Docket Number: No. 17597.,17597.
• Citation: 153 N.E. 737,322 Ill. 503
• Parties: SCHULER et al. v. WILSON et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

322 Ill. 503

153 N.E. 737

SCHULER et al.

v.WILSON et al.

No. 17597.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 28, 1926.

Condemnation proceedings to acquire property for school purposes by Charles Schuler and others, Trustees of Schools of Township No. 1, Range 10, of Monroe County, against Joshua Wilson and others, in which second-named respondent Luella B. Wilson filed a cross-petition. From an order authorizing petitioner to enter on and use the land, on payment of the compensation awarded, respondents Wilson appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Monroe County Court; Frank Durfee and R. E. Gauen, judges.

D. E. Keefe, of East St. Louis, and J. W. Rickert, of Waterloo (Harold G. Baker, of East St. Louis, of counsel), for appellants.

A. C. Bollinger, of Waterloo, for appellees.

DUNN, J.

The trustees of schools of township No. 1, range No. 10, of Monroe county, began a proceeding in the county court, at the instance and request of the board of education of school district No. 20, to assess compensation to the owner for 5.4 acres of land sought to be appropriated for the use of school district No. 20 for additional buildings and recreationgrounds. Joshua Wilson and Luella B. Wilson were made respondents, as owners of the land in fee, and the village of Columbia, the Commercial State Bank of Waterloo, and Harry Aherns, as claiming an interest in the land. The Wilsons demurred to the petition and also moved to dismiss it on the ground that the petitioner was not authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain, and, these objections being overruled, Mrs. Wilson filed a cross-petition, alleging her ownership of valuable land adjoining the tract sought to be taken, which would be greatly damaged by the appropriation of the premises sought to be taken for use as a school playground. The court held that the petitioner had authority to condemn the property, and a trial resulted in a verdict assessing the compensation due Joshua Wilson at $3,000 and finding that Luella B. Wilson would sustain no damage. An order was entered authorizing the petitioner to enter upon and use the land, upon payment of the compensation awarded ($3,000) by May 1, 1926. Joshua Wilson and Luella B. Wilson appealed.

[1] By their assignments of error and argument, the appellants question the right of the trustees of schools to exercise the power of eminent domain and insist that the proceeding can be maintained only by the board of education of the school district. This question is one of statutory construction, for the proceeding is governed entirely by statute. In the act of 1857 to establish and maintain a system of free schools (Laws of 1857, p. 259), the trustees of schools of each township were invested by section 39, in their corporate capacity, with the title, care, and custody of all schoolhouses and schoolhouse sites, but the supervision and control of them were expressly vested in the directors of each district in which the property was situated. In all the various revisions of the school law since that time, in 1872 (Laws 1871, 1872, p. 700) 1889 (Laws 1889, p. 239), and 1909 (Laws 1909, p. 342), this same relation of the trustees and the school directors to school property has been preserved, the title, care, and custody remaining in the trustees and the supervision and control in the directors. In each one of these revisions it has been carefully provided that the trustees elected, as provided by the particular act, should be the successors to the trustees of schools elected in townships under the provisions of the preceding act, and all rights of property and rights and causes of action existing or vested in the trustees of schools elected under the previous acts should vest in the trustees of schools elected under the new act, as successors. The trustees of schools of each township is a municipal corporation for school purposes, and the authority of the Legislature over its property, subject to constitutional limitations, is complete.

The courts have always recognized the legislative disposition whereby the title and ownership of the schoolhouses and school sites are in the trustees, but the immediate control, supervision, and use of them are in the directors. In Wilson v. School Directors, 81 Ill. 180, it was held that school directors had no such interest as would enable them to maintain a bill to compel the conveyance of a schoolhouse site to the trustees of schools, even if it were the defendant's duty to make the conveyance; that the right to the conveyance, if there were any such right, was in the trustees, whom the law made the custodians of the title. In Banks v. School Directors, 194 Ill. 247, 62 N. E. 604, it was held that while the school directors are expressly authorized to agree upon the compensation to be paid for a schoolhouse site with the owners of the land, and, in case of failure to agree, may proceed to have the compensation determined in the manner which may be at the time provided by law for the exercise of the right of eminent domain, yet, if they should agree upon the compensation to be paid for a schoolhouse site, the conveyance would be made to the trustees of schools and not to them; and if they failed to agree, the method provided by law for vesting title for the public use is by a proceeding to condemn the land, and the title would have to be vested in the trustees. Therefore it was held, reversing the judgment, that the proper and necessary petitioners were the trustees of schools, in whom, under the statute, the judgment of the court vests the title upon payment of the compensation. In Thompson v. Trustees of Schools, 218 Ill. 540, 75 N. E. 1048, a petition for condemnation of a site for a township high school was filed by the trustees of schools pursuant to a resolution of the board of education asking the trustees to do so. The owners of the land moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the trustees were without the power to exercise the right of eminent domain. The same section 32 of the School Law (Laws 1889, p. 300), was involved as in the case last cited, and it was held that boards of education were empowered to perform the same duties as school directors and to enter into negotiations with the owner of the site selected for a schoolhouse for its purchase, and, if the compensation could not be agreed upon, to acquire the site by condemnation by the trustees of schools.

Section 127 of the School Law of 1909 confers upon boards of education all the powers of school directors, subjects them to the same limitations, and provides that in addition thereto they shall have certain powers and duties, among which the fifth paragraph of that section...