Sheffield v. Fountain
| Decision Date | 18 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 15097 |
| Citation | 101 Okla. 168,1924 OK 345,224 P. 339 |
| Parties | SHEFFIELD et al. v. FOUNTAIN et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Mandamus--Writ Discretionary.
The writ of mandamus is a discretionary writ, and where it does not appear that the demanded, the writ should be denied.
plaintiff has a clear legal right to the thing
2. Same--Refusal of Writ.
In awarding or denying writs of mandamus, courts exercise judicial discretion, and are governed by what seems necessary and proper to be done in the particular instance for the attainment of justice, and, in view of the consequences attendant upon the issuance of the writ, refuse the same, though the petitioner has a clear legal right for which mandamus is an appropriate remedy.
Error from District Court, Muskogee County; Enloe V. Vernor, Judge.
Action by J. H. Fountain and others against Joe Sheffield and others, composing Board of Union Graded School District No. 3 of Muskogee County. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed.
Ezra Brainerd, Jr., and Charles F. Gotwals, for plaintiffs in error.
O. H. P. Brewer and D. E. Herschelman, for defendants in error.
¶1 The defendants in error commenced this action for the purpose of procuring a writ of mandamus to compel the school board of union graded district No. 3 of Muskogee county to maintain a school at Fowler's Chapel in said district for the remainder of the school year 1923-24. Upon a trial of the case on December 27, 1923, a peremptory writ of mandamus was issued commanding the school board of union graded district No. 3 of Muskogee county to immediately equip, open, and maintain Fowler's Chapel school and employ a teacher at a salary not to exceed $ 75 per month, to continue the same for three months beginning January 1, 1924. From the judgment so rendered, the school board has appealed.
¶2 Union graded district No. 3 of Muskogee county was organized several years ago, and embraces what were formerly designated as school districts 70 and 77. At the time the old district was disorganized and the union graded district No. 3 was organized, district No. 70 had one school building and maintained one school. District No. 77 had two school buildings and maintained two schools, one being located at Webbers Falls and the other at Fowler's Chapel. Since the organization of the union graded school district, a central school has been established and maintained at Webbers Falls for those pupils who have advanced beyond the 6th grade. This school was in addition to the school which already existed at Webbers Falls and which is still maintained. It does not appear from the record just when the union graded district was formed, neither does it appear whether after its formation locations for schools were designated at an annual meeting of the electors of the district. It does appear, however, that a school was maintained at Fowler's Chapel through the spring term of 1923, but in the fall of 1923 the school board of union graded district No. 3 did not open the Fowler's Chapel school, although the other schools which had been theretofore maintained were opened and maintained. The evidence shows that the school board did not maintain a school at Fowler's Chapel because the school of Webbers Falls was only two and one-half miles from the patrons who would have been served at the Fowler's Chapel school; that by reason of the small amount of taxable property in the union graded district and the fact that the district was burdened with the additional expense of the central school at Webbers Falls and also the desire to maintain this central school and two other schools for a full nine months period, instead of maintaining three schools in addition to the central school for a shorter period of time, and also because the building which had been used as a school house at Fowler's Chapel was considered to be in a dangerous and unsafe condition. It is the contention of the defendants in error that the board has no discretion in this matter and no authority to discontinue the school at Fowler's Chapel because of the following provision in section 10483, Comp. Stat. 1921, to wit:
"No schoolhouse shall ever be abolished, sold or removed except by a majority vote of the school electors living in the area included in the original district."
¶3 This portion of the statute has no application to the selection of places for holding school in the school district, but applies only to abolishing, selling, or removing schoolhouses which have been purchased by taxes levied on the property of that portion of the union graded district. The purpose of the statute was to prevent the sale or removal or destruction of such building unless authorized by a majority vote of the school electors living in the area which had been taxed for the purpose of erecting the building or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Take v. Woodruff, Case Number: 22203
...sought is that of mandamus, and before the same may be granted there must be a showing of a clear legal right thereto. Sheffield v. Fountain, 101 Okla. 168, 224 P. 339; Jones v. Sneed, Secy. of State, 101 Okla. 295, 225 P. 700; Feuquay et al. v. McAlister, Secy. of State Election Board, 102......
-
Herndon v. Excise Bd. of Garfield Cnty.
...so even where the petitioner has a clear legal right for which mandamus would be an appropriate remedy." 38 C. J. 550; Sheffield v. Fountain, 101 Okla. 168, 224 P. 339; Guthrie Bd. of Educ. v. Logan Co., 101 Okla. 225, 224 P. 508; Guthrie Bd. of Educ. v. Excise Board, 96 Okla. 24, 206 P. 31......
-
Bd. of Com'Rs of Creek Cnty. v. City of Sapulpa
...thereto is substantially doubtful, the writ of mandamus should be denied. Cotton v. Harris, 108 Okla. 203, 235 P. 607; Sheffield v. Fountain 101 Okla. 168, 224 P. 339; Jones v. Sneed, 101 Okla. 295, 225 P. 700; State v. Crouch, 31 Okla. 206, 120 P. 915. Without determining whether or not th......
-
City of Ardmore v. Excise Bd. of Carter Cnty.
...by the local governing body. ¶8 It is contended by the defendant that mandamus was not a proper remedy, and the case of Sheffield v. Fountain, 101 Okla. 168, 224 P. 339, is cited as authority therefor. The rule stated therein is correct, but it has no application herein. In Board of Educati......