State ex rel. Boynton v. Bunton

• Decision Date: 26 January 1935
• Docket Number: 31938.
• Citation: 141 Kan. 103,40 P.2d 326
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BOYNTON, Atty. Gen., v. BUNTON et al. [*]
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

40 P.2d 326

141 Kan. 103

STATE ex rel. BOYNTON, Atty. Gen., v. BUNTON et al. ^[*]

No. 31938.

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 26, 1935

Syllabus by the Court.

Word "adjoining" as used in statute authorizing board of education of third class city having four-year accredited high school to use funds for purpose of transporting high school students from adjoining district having third class city and maintaining only graded school means contiguous or touching (Rev. St. Supp. 1933, 72--605; Rev. St. 1923 77--201, cl. 2).

"Adjoin" means to be contiguous to; to be in contact with; to abut upon.

Common school district board maintaining accredited high school held not authorized to use funds, whether raised by taxation within district, or received as tuition of pupils living outside district, to pay such pupils bonus, or to pay expense of their transportation from their homes to school (Rev. St Supp. 1933, 72--605).

1. The word "adjoining," as used in Rev. St. Supp. 1933 72--605, has its usual and ordinary meaning, that of being contiguous or touching.

2. The school board of a common school district which maintains an accredited high school has no authority to use its funds whether raised by taxation within the district, or received in payment of tuition of pupils living without the district, for the purpose of paying such pupils a bonus, or paying in whole or in part the cost or expense of their transportation from their homes to the school.

Appeal from District Court, Bourbon County; W. F. Jackson, Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of Roland Boynton, Attorney General, against D. T. Bunton and others, Board of Directors of Fulton School District No. 27, Bourbon County, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Judgment reversed, with directions.

Roland Boynton, Atty. Gen., and Frank O'Brien, Co. Atty., of Fort Scott (Harry W. Fisher and F. W. Bayless, both of Fort Scott, of counsel), for appellant.

Hubert Lardner and Daniel O. Lardner, both of Fort Scott, for appellees.

HARVEY Justice.

This is an action to enjoin the members of the school board of a common school district in which is situated a city of the third class, and which maintains a high school, from using moneys of the school district to employ a person to transport pupils from without the district to its high school, or to pay directly to pupils without the district a sum to provide such transportation. After a hearing on the merits, the trial court denied the injunction and rendered judgment for defendants. Plaintiff has appealed.

The facts are not seriously controverted, and may be stated as follows: School district No. 27 in Bourbon county is a common school district, and maintains a high school with a four-year accredited course. Within it is Fulton, a city of the third class, and it sometimes is spoken of as the Fulton School. It is small in area, about one mile square. It appears to be adjoined on all sides by common school districts, none of which contains a city of the third class, or maintains a high school. West of Fulton about eight miles is Mapleton, a city of the third class, situated in a common school district which does not maintain a high school. The school district in which Mapleton is situated does not join the Fulton district; in fact, two other common school districts are situated between them. It seems the county is authorized and levies a tax to pay the tuition of high school students residing in a common school district which does not maintain a high school to a high school in the county which the pupil attends. This tuition is $108 per year. The year prior to the bringing of this action, the Fulton district had received high school students from adjoining and nearby school districts, perhaps some from Mapleton, which did not maintain high schools. The Fulton district received from the county the tuition for each of such pupils, and paid to the pupil a bonus of 50 cents per week for attending its high school, to compensate the pupil in whole or in part for the cost or expense to him of his transportation to the Fulton high school. Shortly prior to the bringing of this action, the members of the Fulton school board decided to change this plan to one best described by the testimony of D. T. Bunton, clerk of the school board and one of the defendants. A synopsis of his testimony on this point is as follows:

"It was our intention if this injunction suit had not been started to operate the bus at the expense of District No. 27 and transport students from without the said district to the high school in Fulton. The district was to pay Bob Meek $75.00 a month for operating the bus, besides this we offered students residing outside of district and not in the bus route fifty cents a week as a bonus for attending the Fulton high school. District No. 27 paid this same bonus to some students last year. We paid this to help pay their cost of transportation. This was paid direct to the students themselves. We made this offer for the district to pay this amount to pupils residing as far south as the Hammond line, six miles south of Fulton, as far east as the Missouri line, two miles north to the Linn county line and as far west as Mapleton, 9 miles. The district board did not adopt any formal resolution but we talked it over and planned to have Mr. Meek run the bus, we, the district board agreed to pay Mr. Meek $75.00 per month to run the bus and transport the students. There are two country school districts intervening between District No. 27 and Mapleton. We were to pay Mr. Meek and he was to bring students to the Fulton high school from Mapleton and along the road. We were going to use public money, the money of the District No. 27 for that purpose. We planned to use a part of the $108.00 tuition money paid by the county for each outside student attending the Fulton high school."

Mr. Meek testified: "I am the 'bus man' in this case. Last year we had cars and the children drove them themselves. This year we decided amongst ourselves we would get a bus and Fulton agreed to pay $75.00 a month. I am now hauling 44 pupils. The children that haul pay nothing in addition to the $75.00."

There is no contention that any statute authorizes Fulton district to use any of its money, whether received as tuition or otherwise, to pay transportation cost or expenses for nonresident pupils attending its high school, or to pay any of...