Case ID: ohio-st_99/html/0369-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Donahue, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brannon et al. v. The Board of Education of the Tiro Consolidated School District of Crawford County et al.
    
      Schools — Board of education — Authority to determine district needs — Section 7625, General Code — Injunction does not lie — To control discretion of hoard, when.
    
    1. Section 7625, General Code, vests in a board of education au- • thority to determine the needs of the school district for the proper accommodation of its schools.
    2. A court has no authority to control the discretion vested in a board of education by the statutes of this state, or to substitute its judgment for the judgment of such board, upon any question it is authorized bj' law to determine.
    3. A court will not restrain a board of education from carrying into effect its determination of any question within its discretion, except for an abuse of discretion or for fraud or collusion on the part of such board in the exercise of its statutory authority.
    (No. 16062
    Decided April 29, 1919.)
    Error to the Court of Appeals of Crawford county.
    In January of 1917 The Board of Education of the Tiro Consolidated School District of Crawford County passed a resolution declaring it necessary to purchase a site and erect-, thereon a schoolhouse and fully equip the same, in order to furnish proper accommodations for school purposes in that school district; and further providing that the question of issuing $40,000 of bonds for the purposes named be submitted to the electors of that district at a special election on the 14th day of February, 1917.
    
      In pursuance of such resolution an election was held, at which a majority of the qualified voters of the district voted in favor of the issuing of bonds in the amount named. Thereupon the board of education proceeded to advertise for sale the bonds so authorized to be issued, and bids were received therefor.
    On the 21st day of April, 1917, and before the time fixed for the sale of these bonds, plaintiffs in error filed an action in the common pleas court of Crawford county, Ohio, asking that the board of education be perpetually enjoined from offering these bonds for sale, and from selling or disposing of all or any part thereof, and averring among other things that the district was and is provided with sufficient school buildings and equipment for the proper accommodation of the schools of said district, that it is not necessary for the proper accommodation of such schools to issue bonds for the purchase of a site and the erection of buildings and purchase of equipment, that the board of education in passing said resolution was guilty of a gross abuse of discretion, and that its proceedings in that respect were unlawful and illegal and without authority and in furtherance of a scheme and conspiracy between the board of education and Fred G. Bittikofer to centralize the schools of that district without submitting the question-of centralization to the electors of that district, as required by Section 4726, General Code. The petition prayed that--a perpetual injunction issue against the defendant board of education, enjoining it from advertising these bonds for sale, or selling all or any part thereof.
    On March 6, 1918, plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition, averring among other things that on the 21st day of January, 1916, The Board of Education of Crawford County, Ohio, created out of the territory embraced in The Tiro Consolidated School District two distinct rural school districts, one of said districts being denominated The North Auburn (Rural) School District and the other The Tiro Consolidated Rural School District, and that it provided in its minutes that this district “for the purpose of identification shall be known as the Tiro Consolidated Rural School District;” that no board of education was appointed for this rural district; that all the resolutions and legislation referred to in plaintiffs’ petition were passed by The Board of Education of the Tiro Consolidated School District, and not by The Board of Education of the Tiro Consolidated Rural -School District; and that at the election held to authorize the issue of bonds the electors of The Tiro Consolidated Rural School District voted to issue the bonds of The Tiro Consolidated School District.
    On the 21st day of April, 1917, a temporary injunction was allowed, which injunction, on the 7th day of May, 1917, was made perpetual. The cause was thereupon appealed by the defendants to the court of appeals of Crawford county, in which court the defendants filed an answer admitting the passage of the resolution described in the petition, and the purpose and intent of the board of education to issue bonds in the sum of $40,000 unless restrained by order of the court, and the intention to apply the proceeds' of such bonds to the building and equipping of a schoolhouse, as stated in the petition, and denying each and every allegation in the plaintiffs’ petition. Further answering defendants averred that the issues joined by the pleadings in this case were fully and finally adjudicated in cause No. 11840 on the docket of the commons pleas court of Crawford county, which action was brought and maintained by the plaintiffs in that case as taxpayers of the school district; and defendants further averred that on the 26th day of September, 1917, pursuant to a resolution passed by the board of education, the question of centralization of schools of The Tiro Consolidated School District was submitted to the qualified electors of that district, under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 4726, General Code, and that a majority of the qualified electors of that district voted in favor of centralization.
    The defendants answering the amendment to the petition denied each and every allegation therein contained, except such as were admitted in the original answer.
    The plaintiffs in reply to this answer admitted that the question of centralization of schools was submitted to the qualified electors of The Tiro Consolidated School District, and that the majority of the electors of that district voted for centralization, but averred that the question of centralization was never submitted to the qualified electors of The Tiro Consolidated Rural School District; and they denied each and every other allegation of the answer.
    The issue so joined was heard by the court of appeals on the pleadings and the evidence, and that court found on the issues joined for the defendants, and further ordered that the defendants should pay the costs of the suit.
    This proceeding in error is brought to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals of Crawford county.
    
      Mr. William C. Beer, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Mr. 0. W. Kennedy and Mr. Chester A. Meek, for defendants in error.
   Donahue, J.

Section 7625, General Code, vests in the board of education authority to determine the needs of the school district for the proper accommodation of its schools; and, where funds at its disposal, or funds that can be raised under the provisions of Sections 7629 and 7630, are not sufficient to provide such accommodations, it is the duty of the board of education to make an estimate of the probable amount of money required for such purpose, or purposes, and submit the question of issuing bonds for the amount of such estimate to the electors of the district at a general election, or at a special election called for that purpose.

A court has no authority to control the discretion vested in a board of education by the statutes of this state, or to substitute its judgment for the judgment of such board, upon any question it is authorized by law to determine. Nor will a court restrain such board of education from carrying into effect its determination of any question within its jurisdiction, except for an abuse of discretion, or for fraud and collusion on the part of such board in the exercise of its statutory authority.

In this action the plaintiffs aver that it was and is wholly unnecessary to purchase a site and build and construct a schoolhouse for the proper accommodation of the schools of this district; that the resolution of the board of education declaring the same to be necessary was fraudulent and in pursuance of collusion and conspiracy to effect a centralization of the schools of that district without submitting the question to a vote of the electors, as required by Section 4726, General Code.

This petition states a good cause of action. The demurrer thereto was properly overruled by the common pleas’court. The defendants not desiring to plead further, judgment as prayed for in the petition followed as a matter of course. The cause was then appealed to the court of appeals, and in that court the defendants filed an answer denying the allegations of fraud and collusion and averring that the question presented by the plaintiffs’ petition had theretofore been fully adjudicated in 'a court of competent jurisdiction, at the suit of a taxpayer or taxpayers of that school district. The answer further averred that since the commencement of the suit the question of centralization had been submitted to the electors of the school district and ratified by a majority vote. The reply, in effect, denied the affirmative averments of the answer.

The court of appeals found from the evidence upon all the issues in favor of the defendants. No bill of exceptions wa§ taken, and no question is presented by this record as to the sufficiency of the evidence. The finding and judgment of the trial court is therefore conclusive upon the parties to this action upon all issues of fact joined by the pleadings.

The court of appeals having found from the evidence that the board of education exercised the discretion conferred upon it.by law, without fraud or collusion, it is wholly unimportant to discuss the effect of the centralization of the schools by a vote of the electors, of the district after the commencement of this suit and before the trial in the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Wanamaker and Robinson, JJ., concur.