The Trustees of Sch. v. People Ex Rel. Martin Van Allen.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1877 |
| Citation | 29 Am.Rep. 55,1877 WL 9862,87 Ill. 303 |
| Parties | THE TRUSTEES OF SCHOOLSv.THE PEOPLE ex rel. Martin Van Allen. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
Mr. JOHN P. WILSON, and Messrs. STEELE & JONES, for the appellant.
Mr. G. A. FOLLANSBEE, and Mr. FRANCKE C. ELLIOTT, for the appellee.
This was a proceeding by mandamus to compel the trustees of schools of the town of Lake View to admit the relator's son, Frank Van Allen, as a pupil in the high school of that town.
The respondents demurred to the petition, but the court overruled the demurrer, and the respondents electing to stand by their demurrer, judgment was given awarding a peremptory mandamus to the respondents to admit Frank Van Allen to the high school.
The technical objection urged against the petition on the ground of multifariousness, in view of the present liberality in pleadings in relation to matters not substantially affecting the question to be litigated, must be held to be without merit. The matter objected to might have been stricken out on the trial without working a continuance, and it was totally disregarded by the court in its judgment. Whatever of error there may have been in its inclusion in the petition, did not and could not have prejudiced the respondents.
The material question is, were the respondents authorized, for the cause by them alleged, to deny to relator's son admission to the high school?
The facts stated in the petition, which the demurrer admits, are, the relator, being a citizen and tax-payer of the township, applied to the respondents to have his son admitted as a pupil in the high school. The son passed a satisfactory examination and was sufficiently proficient in all branches of study, except that of grammar, to entitle him, under the regulations prescribed by respondents, to admission to the high school. The relator had forbidden his son to study grammar, and desired that he should pursue no study which necessitated a previous knowledge of grammar--and asked that he be admitted to pursue only those studies in which he was sufficiently proficient to entitle him to admission to the high school. The respondents denied the son admission to the high school, solely because of his inability to pass satisfactory examination in grammar.
The high school was established under the fourth clause of section 35 of the school law, which is as follows: “Upon petition of fifty voters of any school township, filed with the township treasurer at least fifteen days preceding a regular election of trustees, it shall be the duty of said treasurer to notify the voters of the township that an election “For” and ““Against” a high school will be held at the next ensuing election of trustees, and the ballots to such effect shall be received and canvassed at such election; and if the majority of the voters at such election shall be found to be in favor of a high school, it shall be the duty of the trustees of the township to establish at some central point, most convenient for a majority of the pupils of the township, a high school for the education of the more advanced pupils.” (Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 957.)
The next clause provides, “For the purpose of building a school house, supporting the school, and other necessary expenses, the town shall be regarded as a school district, and the trustees shall have the power and discharge the duties of directors for such district in all respects.”
It is apparent the object of the legislature was simply to increase the facilities for acquiring a good education in free schools. The high school thus established can no more be controlled for the benefit of some to the exclusion of others, than can the district school. All children in the township, within the prescribed ages for admission to the public schools, have equal rights of admission to the high school when they are sufficiently advanced to need its instruction. It would be contrary to natural right and the manifest purpose of the legislature, to hold that the high school, by arbitrary and unreasonable regulations of the trustees, should be practically closed to all but a favored few. Every tax payer contributes to its maintenance, and there should be no arbitrary regulation to prohibit the enjoyment of its benefits, in equal degree by all.
It is, of course, to be kept in view that its purpose is the teaching of more advanced branches than those taught in the district school, and that to insist that precisely the same studies should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Ed. v. Purse
...... people, and shall provide for the early resumption of ...Inhabitants of Woburn, 12. Allen, 127, it was ruled that a school committee of a ... therein,--the school trustees of such city, to whom the law. has confided the ... Wood, 35 Wis. 59; Reeve, Dom. Rel. (4th Ed.) 357, 358;. Russell v. Inhabitants of ......
-
Leeper v. State
...... to the people of the state. . . Section. ... Webber, 108 Ind. 31, 8 N.E. 708; Trustees of Schools. v. People, 87 Ill. 303; Jones v. ......
-
Francis v. Gisborn
......Green, 82 Ill. 386; Douglas. v. Martin, 103 Ill. 25.). . . In. cases where ... Wood, 42 N. J. 563; People v. Everist, 4 Hill. [N.Y.] 71; Butler v. ... Poss., 327; 2 Beach on Trusts and Trustees, 668; Wood on. Limitations (3 Ed.), 58, and ......
-
Urbach v. City of Omaha
...Town of Anita, 73 Iowa, 325, 35 N. W. 244;Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220;Trustees of Schools v. People, 87 Ill. 303, 29 Am. Rep. 55;In re Frazee, 63 Mich. 396, 30 N. W. 72, 6 Am. St. Rep. 310;Clason v. City of Milwaukee, 30 Wis. 316; Ex parte Frank, 52 Cal......
-
The Parent as (mere) Educational Trustee: Whose Education Is It, Anyway?
...Ct. App. 1921) (compelling admission of students whose parents objected to dance classes); Trs. of Schs. v. People ex rel. Van Allen, 87 Ill. 303 (Ill. 1877) (grammar); Rulison v. Post, 79 Ill. 567 (Ill. 1875) (bookkeeping); State ex rel. Kelley v. Ferguson, 95 Neb. 63, 71-73, 144 N.W. 1039......