Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0680-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LLOYD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 749
    CLARK v. CURTISS et.
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Erie Co.
    No. 253.
    Decided Sept. 23, 1927.
    First Publication of this Opinion.
    1065. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS — Section 4736 GC. was not intended as substitute for 4735-1 and 4735-2 GC., and these latter sections are not so in conflict with 4736 GC. as not to be reconcilable therewith.
    Appeal from Common Pleas.
    Petition dismissed.
    J. F. Hartlein and Henry Hart, Sandusky, for Clark.
    Krueger & Rosino, Sandusky, for Curtiss.
   LLOYD, J.

Plaintiff, a citizen and taxpayer of West Perkins Rural School District in this county, on behalf of himself and other taxpayers thereof, seeks to enjoin the defendants, some of whom are members of and acting as the Board of Deputy State Supervisors of Elections of Erie County and others of whom are presiding judges of certain election precincts in Perkins Rural School District, from proceeding with an election to be held in said latter school district pursuant to and in conformity with 4735-1 and 4735-2 GC.

The above mentioned school districts formerly constituted one district and recently were divided into two school districts by proceedings had by the county board of education of Erie County, under authority of 4736 GC. By the election thus sought to be held, if a majority voting thereat favors such proposal, it is planned to re-unite these two districts by dissolution of Perkins Rural School District and joining the same to the newly created West Perkins Special School District, thus, in effect, undoing what the County Board of , Education had done by the taking from what was then Perkins Rural School District that part thereof now constituting West Perkins Special School District.

The plaintiff claims that the proceedings had, and the election to be held pursuant thereto, are a nullity because, he says, Sections 4735-1 and 4735-2 GC., being irreconcilably in conflict with 4736 GC., are, by implication, repealed thereby. The act creating these sections was passed in 1914. Some _ of the sections included in this act, among which are 4735-1, 4735-2 and 4736, were amendments of sections theretofore in force. 104 O. L. 133 et seq.

Sections 4735-1 and 4735-2 have not been amended and read now as when enacted in 1914. Section 4736 was amended in 1916 (106 O. L. 397) and in 1919 (108 O. L. part I, pg. 707) was again amended to read as it now appears in the General Code.

An examination of these several sections discloses that if any conflict existed, such conflict has continuously existed to a greater or less degree since their enactment in 1914, at which time, the General Assembly expressed, in the title of the enactment containing these sections, as well as in the act itself, an intent that all of them should he equally operative. We are unable to agree with plaintiif that the statutory provisions in question are in conflict simply because the procedure authorized by 4735-1 and 4735-2, if successfully consummated, may result in combining into one school district, territory which has theretofore constituted á single district but had been divided into two districts by the county board of education, pursuant to the authority conferred by 4736 GC.

We are therefore unable to conclude that 4736 was intended as a substitute for 4735-1 and 4735-2, or that these latter sections are so clearly in conflict with 4736 as not to be reconcilable therewith.

(Richards and Williams, JJ., concur.)