Stromberg v. French, 5938.

• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: NUESSLE
• Citation: Stromberg v. French, 60 N.D. 750, 236 N.W. 477 (N.D. 1931)
• Decision Date: 01 May 1931
• Docket Number: No. 5938.,5938.
• Parties: STROMBERG v. FRENCH et al.

60 N.D. 750

236 N.W. 477

STROMBERG

v.FRENCH et al.

No. 5938.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

May 1, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

The board of education of a special school district, having the power and being charged with the duty, under the statute (section 1251, C. L. 1913), to have the custody of all school property, and to adopt, alter, and repeal rules and regulations for the reception, organization, grading, government, and instruction of pupils, may forbid pupils to wear metal heel plates when it appears that the use of such plates injures the floors of the school more than would the use of heels without plates, and causes such noise and confusion in and about the school building as to interfere with the conduct and discipline of the school.

Syllabus by the Court.

An intentional refusal by a pupil to observe a rule enacted by the board of education for the control and management of a school, though done without malice and willfulness on his part and because of the command of his parents, constitutes “insubordination” within the meaning of that term as used in the statute (section 1251, C. L. 1913), providing that no pupil shall be suspended or expelled except for insubordination, willful indolence, or disorderly conduct.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Supreme Court on appeal must give appreciable weight to trial court's determination, since that court had advantage of hearing witnesses and was in much better position to ascertain real facts in case than appellate court could do from record alone.

Appeal from District Court, Cavalier County; W. J. Kneeshaw, Judge.

Action by G. E. Stromberg, as natural guardian of Murray Stromberg, a minor, against J. C. French and others, as members of the Board of Education of Langdon Special School District. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Snowfield & Stewart, of Langdon, for appellant.

E. E. Fletcher, of Langdon, for respondents.

NUESSLE, J.

This action was brought to restrain the defendants from enforcing the following rule adopted by the board of education of the city of Langdon, to wit: “Notice is hereby given that on and after September 29, 1930, any boy wearing metal heel plates on his shoes will be refused admittance to classes and will be suspended or expelled until the heel plates are removed.”

The board of education of the city of Langdon is a special school district, organized pursuant to the provisions of article 9, chapter 12 (sections 1229-1285, inclusive), C. L. 1913. The defendants French and Smith are the principal and superintendent, respectively, of the school conducted therein. The defendants Wilson, Fletcher, Miller, Kirkham, and Murie are the members of the board of education of said special school district. The plaintiff, G. E. Stromberg, is a resident in and a patron of the school district, and his minor son, Murray Stromberg, is a pupil in the high school maintained therein. On September 25, 1930, the rule above quoted was enacted. Murray Stromberg, at the direction of his father, G. E. Stromberg, wore metal heel plates. The plaintiff insisted that he had a right to do so and that the action of the board of education forbidding their use was unreasonable. The defendants threatened to enforce the rule. The plaintiff thereupon began the instant action to permanently enjoin them from doing so.

The case came to trial before the court without a jury. Evidence was offered in support of the contentions of the respective parties. The court held that the rule in question was a reasonable one and that the board of education had the right to make and enforce it, and accordingly ordered judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff thereupon perfected the instant appeal.

The record discloses that at the beginning of the school year in September, 1930, some of the boys attending the Langdon High School were wearing shoes on the heels of which metal plates were affixed. The principal and superintendent, believing that the use of these plates resulted in undue noise when their wearers walked through the halls and in the classrooms of the school and caused unreasonable damage to the floors of the school, requested the boys wearing them to discontinue their use. The boys complied with this request. Murray Stromberg was one of the boys who used heel plates. His mother noticed that he had removed the plates and directed him to replace them. He complied with his mother's direction and the school authorities, objecting, sent him home until such time as he should remove the plates. Plaintiff was informed of this action of the principal and superintendent and at once interviewed them. He insisted that as a parent he had the right to determine what apparel his boy should wear at school, that therefore he had the right to direct Murray to wear heel plates, and that the action of the school authorities in forbidding their use was arbitrary and unreasonable, and he insisted that Murray be permitted to continue in school though he wore the forbidden heel plates. Thereupon, on September 25, 1930, the school board enacted the rule first above quoted.

It appears that heel plates are quite commonly worn on the heels of shoes. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that their use prolongs the life of the heel appreciably. On the other hand, defendants offered evidence tending to show that their use was a fad rather than a matter of practical advantage. The floors of the Langdon High School are of hardwood, varnished and polished. The testimony of the defendants further tended to show that the use of these heel plates by boys in the high school caused undue noise when they were passing through the halls, and that the floors were injured thereby more than they would be by ordinary leather or rubber heels. It further appears that a number of high school boys wore heel plates and that all were requested to discontinue their use for the above reasons. The trial court found, among other things:

“That such rule does not involve any element of oppression or humiliation to the pupils attending such High School, and that it imposes no affirmative duty upon such pupils, and that no more than a nominal consumption of time or expenditure of money is required to comply with it; and that in adopting said rule the members of said Board of Education acted wholly and entirely in good faith.

That the floors of said High School building are made of hardwood, and that the wearing on their shoes of metal heel plates by the boys attending such High School was and is the direct cause of extraordinary and material damage to such floors, and was and is the direct cause of unusual and material expense to said Special School District.

That the wearing on their shoes of such metal heel plates by the boys attending such High School also caused an excessive and great amount of unnecessary and unusual noise and confusion in and about the High School building and both directly and indirectly tended to prevent, hinder and interfere with the discipline, government and instruction of the pupils attending such High School.”

And the court held that the rule in question was a reasonable one and that the defendants had the right to make and enforce it.

The plaintiff on this appeal challenges the findings of the trial court as being not supported by the evidence. He contends that, in any event, the rule of which he complains is unreasonable and arbitrary and that it infringes upon his parental right to determine what is reasonable and proper apparel for his son.

[3] The...