Case ID: ohio-st_19/html/0577-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Anders et al. v. John D. W. Spargur, Treasurer of Highland County, et al.
    
    The term “sub-district,” as used in the first section of the supplementary , act of April 9,1867, in relation to common schools (S. & S. 717), does not include the subordinate territorial divisions of separate school districts into which a city or village may be subdivided under the provisions of section thirty-three of the act of March 14, 1853 (S. & S. 1358); but applies exclusively to township or country sub-districts outside of the limits of any city or village, as established by the first section of said act of March 14, 1853.
    Error to the district court of Highland county.
    The incorporated village of Leesburg, with the territory thereto annexed for school purposes, constituted, under the general school law of March 14,1853 (S. & C. 1346), a separate school district. Its board of education, in accordance with the provisions of that act, under section 33, had divided it into two sub-districts. After the passage of the supplementary school law of April 9,1867 (S. & S. 717), the electors of one of these sub-districts (No. 2) took the proper steps, under the last-named act, to erect the sub-district into a separate school district, organized as such, and proceeded regularly to levy and caused to be assessed and collected a school tax. The plaintiffs, citizens, and tax-payers resident within its territory filed their petition in the court of common pleas of Highland county, to enjoin the collection of this tax, upon the ground that the proceedings to create the school district were void, not for any alleged irregularity, ' but because the law of 1867 conferred no authority upon the sr’b-district to become a separate districts The court of common pleas gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In the: district court this judgment was reversed, and a judgment rendered dismissing the petition. To reverse this latter judgment is the object of this petition in error.
    
      Slocme & Steel, for plaintiffs in error, cited:
    
      Administrator of Tracy v. Administrator of Card, 2 Ohio St. 431-445; 
      Stone v. Elliott, 11 Ohio St. 252-258; Keiffer v. Ehler, 18 Penn. St. (6 Harris) 388; Steamboat Messenger v. Pressler, 13 Ohio St. 254-262; Sedgwick on Stat. and Const. Law, 237-8, 247, 248, 252; Ayers v. Knox, 7 Mass. 306, 310; Staniels et al. v. Raymond, 4 Cushing, 214; Inhabitants of Sumerset v. Inhabitants of Dighton, 12 Mass. 383; 66 O. L. 116; Coutant v. The People, 11 Wend. 512, 514; Burgett v. Burgett, 1 Ohio, 469, 479-80; S. & C. 1359, sec. 3.
    
      S. & S. R. Matthews, for defendants in error,
    cited: S. & C. 1346, secs. 1, 32, 67; S. & S. 717, sec. 1; Canton Union School v. Meyer et al., 9 Ohio St. 586; 66 O. L. 116; Burgett v. Burgett, 1 Ohio, 482; McCormick v. Alexander, 2 Ohio, 65, 74; Ludlow v. Johnston, 3 Ohio, 566; Turney v. Yeoman, 14 Ohio, 207; Hirn v. The State, 1 Ohio St. 15; Hathaway's case, 4 Ohio St. 385; Hurd v. Robinson, 11 Ohio St. 237.
   By the Court:

We are of opinion that the term “ sub-district,” as used in the first section of the act of April 9, .1867 (S. & S. 717), does not include the subordinate territorial divisions of separate school districts into which a city or village may be sub-divided under the provisions of section thirty-three of the act of March 14, 1853 (S. & C. 1358), but applies exclusively to township or country sub-districts outside of the limits of any city or village, as established by the first section of said act of March 14,1853.

: It therefore follows that the attempted erection of one of the sub-districts of the village of Leesburg into a separate school district was not authorized by the act of April 9,1867, and that the levy and assessment of the school tax in question were likewise without authority of law, and that its collection should be enjoined.

The judgment of the district court must be reversed, and that of the common pleas affirmed.