Wright v. Cook
| Decision Date | 26 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 844 |
| Citation | 216 Ala. 270,113 So. 252 |
| Parties | WRIGHT et al. v. COOK et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Winston County; R.L. Blanton, Judge.
Bill in equity by J.A. Cook and others against W.H. Wright and others. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill respondents appeal. Affirmed.
Mayhall & Mayhall, of Haleyville, and Williams & Chenalut, of Russellville, for appellant.
T.B Russell and J.A. Posey, both of Haleyville, for appellee.
Towns in this state having a population of 1,000 and less than 2,000 inhabitants, according to the last federal census, are empowered through their city council or other governing body to select by a majority vote of its entire membership, and in accordance with the plan set out in section 156 of the School Code of 1924, a board of education of five members, to exercise the government and control of the schools of such town. School Code, 1924, § 154. Section 155 of said Code prescribes the qualifications of members of the school board as those "who shall be residents of such city, and who shall not be members of the city council or commission," and provides that they shall serve without compensation and "shall be chosen solely because of their character and fitness, but no person shall be appointed or elected to the board under the provisions of these sections, who is in any way subject to the authority of the (selecting) board."
Section 156 fixes the term of the members of the board of education so selected, at five years and provides that one member shall be elected in April of each year. The members of the board of education so selected are officers of the town and cannot be removed from office except for the causes specified in 173 of the Constitution. Constitution 1901, § 175; Petree v. McMurray, 210 Ala. 639, 98 So. 782; McMurray v. County Board of Education of Franklin County (Ala.Sup.) 112 So. 644.
Therefore, it is clear that the resolution of the town council of Haleyville, made Exhibit B to the bill, in so far as it undertook to remove the complainants from office by declaring the existing board null, is ultra vires. Posey v. Town of North Birmingham, 154 Ala. 511, 45 So. 663, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 711;
19 R.C.L. 1137, § 414; 8 Words and Phrases, First Series, page 7145.
The principle is well established that courts of equity will by injunctive process protect the incumbent of an office who shows a prima facie right to continue in office, against the intrusion of adverse claimants out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkinson v. Henry, 6 Div. 603.
...opinion that, in this jurisdiction, the limitation as to elections is as stated in section 549, Code of 1923. The case of Wright v. Cook, 216 Ala. 270, 113 So. 252, is where jurisdiction was sustained, and the rights adverse claimants as members of the board of education were adjudicated. T......
-
Yates v. Summers
...242 S.W. 573; Guillotte v. Poincy, 41 La. Ann. 333, 6 So. 507, 5 L.R.A. 403; Casey v. Bryce, 173 Ala. 129, 55 So. 810, 811; Wright v. Cook, 216 Ala. 270, 113 So. 252; Doughty v. Bryant, 226 Ala. 23, 145 So. 420. The case of Wood v. Miller was a direct proceeding to try the title to the offi......
- Musgrove Const., Inc. v. Malley
-
Council of the Phenix City v. Phenix City Bd. of Educ.
...in [Article VII,] Section 173 of the Constitution of Alabama 1901....” 279 Ala. at 565, 188 So.2d at 526. See also Wright v. Cook, 216 Ala. 270, 271, 113 So. 252, 254 (1927) (stating that members of a town's board of education “are officers of the town and cannot be removed from office exce......