Case ID: mich_131/html/0272-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Grant, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DECKERVILLE HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 OF MARION AND BRIDGEHAMPTON TOWNSHIPS.
    1. Schools and School Districts — Creation or New District —Apportionment or Interest Moneys.
    Where a legislative act dividing a school district provided that each district should receive one-half of all moneys, rents, and profits due to the district divided up to the time the act took effect, which was April 18th, the new district was not entitled to a share of the primary school interest fund apportioned to the old district in the following November, though the apportionment was based on the number of school children for the previous year.
    2. Same — Maintenance op School — Constitutional Requirement.
    Under Const, art. 13, § 5, providing that no school district neglecting to maintain a school for at least three months in each year shall be entitled to its proportion of the income of the primary school fund for the ensuing year, a school district which, during the eight months which have elapsed since its organization, has had no school, is not entitled to share in an apportionment of interest moneys made within that period.
    
      Certiorari to Sanilac; Beacb, J.
    Submitted June 17, 1902.
    (Calendar No. 19,224.)
    Decided June 24, 1902.
    
      Mandamus by the Deckerville High School District to compel School District No.' 3 of the townships of Marion and Bridgehampton to pay to relator one-half of certain primary school interest moneys. From an order granting the writ, respondent brings certiorari.
    
    Reversed.
    In 1901 the legislature organized the relator as a school district from a part of the territory of the defendant school district. The act provided for a sale of the property of the old district, and a distribution of the proceeds therefrom equally between the new and the old districts, and further provided that each district “shall receive one-half of all moneys, rents, and other profits due to said district No. 3 previous and up to the time this act shall take effect.” Each district was also required to pay one-half the debts. The act took effect April 18, 1901. (Act No. 398, Local Acts 1901.) The property was sold as the act directed, and on Juty 8, 1901, a complete settlement was made between the two districts, upon which the sum of $381.30 was found due from the respondent to the relator, which amount was paid. In November, 1901, the superintendent of public instruction apportioned to the respondent, as its share of the primary school money, the sum of $552, which was paid to the assessor of the respondent. Relator, claiming that, under the act above mentioned, one-half of said money belonged to it, made a demand for the same, which was refused, and the relator then filed a petition in the circuit court for the writ of mandamus to compel such payment. The writ was granted, and the case is now before this court for review.
    
      William H. Aitkin, for relator.
    
      William H. Burgess, for respondent.
   Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). It appears both from the petition for writ of mandamus and in the answer that at the time the petition was filed no school had been taught in the new district. The petition says that the school officers have contracted with a teacher to conduct the Deckerville high school for the winter and spring terms. The petition was filed January 13, 1902. The apportionment of the school moneys in November, 1901, was based upon the reports of 1900. The interest upon this primary school fund is computed to the 1st day of April in each year by the auditor general. It is after that apportioned by the superintendent of public instruction to the various school districts, based upon the number of children in each school district for the previous year, and is apportioned semi-annually between the 1st and 10th days of May and the 1st and 10th days of November each year.

We think the court was wrong in holding that, under the terms of the act, the relator had a right to a division of the primary school moneys apportioned to the respondent. The moneys to be afterwards ascertained and apportioned were not included within the terms of the act. The answer, which must be taken as true, alleges that no teachers have been employed by the relator since its organization; that the respondent has maintained a school, and that it has been open and free to the whole of the original district; and that a large number of pupils residing within the territory of that district have attended the respondent’s school, and are now in attendance, without charge for tuition. Further, by section 5, art. 13, of the Constitution, no school district which neglects to maintain a school for at least three months in each year shall be entitled for the ensuing year to its proportion of the primary school fund. Although the relator had been organized for eight months prior to the time of filing its petition, and more than six months prior to the apportionment to the respondent, yet it had no school. It could not, under this provision, receive the money directly from the 'State.

Judgment reversed.

Hooker, C. J., Moore and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.