Town of Wrentham v. Fales

• Decision Date: 18 May 1904
• Citation: 185 Mass. 539,70 N.E. 936
• Parties: TOWN OF WRENTHAM v. FALES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

185 Mass. 539

70 N.E. 936

TOWN OF WRENTHAM v. FALES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

May 18, 1904

COUNSEL

Henry

E. Ruggles, for appellant.

E. J Whitaker, for appellee.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

The defendant, a resident of the town of Norfolk, applied to the school committee of Wrentham for permission to have his children admitted to the public schools of the latter town and upon his express promise to pay for such schooling permission was granted, and the children attended the schools for many weeks. After having received in full the benefit for which he thus agreed to pay, the defendant declines to pay upon the ground that the contract was invalid, in that the town could not legally enter into it. The chief question here is whether the defense of illegality is well taken.

'The laws of this commonwealth for the establishment and maintenance of public schools are designed to provide shools in each town or district for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof, and not for the benefit of residents in other towns or districts. It is only in a few exceptional cases specified by statute that the inhabitants of one town can send their children to the public school in any other town; and, except in such cases and upon such conditions as are thus provided by law, towns have no authority to open their schools to children of the inhabitants of other towns. If they do receive children from other towns in violation of law, they cannot maintain any action against the parents of such children for their tuition, even if there is an express contract to pay it. Such a contract, being founded upon illegality, cannot be enforced.' Morton, J., in Haverhill v. Gale, 103 Mass. 104, 105. Both parties concede these general principles, but the plaintiffs contend that this case falls within the provisions of St. 1894, p 609, c. 498, § 8. The question reduced to its lowest terms therefore is whether this section covers this case. It is as follows: 'Children may, with the consent of the school committee first obtained, attend schools in cities and towns other than those in which their parents or guardians reside but when a child resides in a city or town different from that of the residence of the parent or guardian, for the sole purpose of attending school there, the parent or guardian of such child shall be liable to pay such city or town for tuition, a sum equal to the average expense per scholar for the period during which the child so attends.' The contention of the plaintiff, is that the first part of this section authorizes the school committee of any town to permit the children of another town within this state to attend school in the former, and that, such being the case, a special contract between such school committee and the parent of the children that he shall pay for such schooling contemplates no violation of law, and it not illegal. The contention of the defendant is, first, that the statute does not authorize the children of one town to attend the schools of another town; second, that, even if it does, the school committee of the town in which the parent resides, and not that in which the child attends school, is the one whose consent must first be obtained; and, third, that it clearly appears from the reading of the whole section that liability to pay attaches only in a case where 'the child resides in a city or town different from that of the residence of his parent or guardian for the sole...