Case ID: pa_45/html/0093-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Woodward, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Heard et al. versus The School Directors of Woodcock Township.
    
      Power of court to remove school directors.— Consolidation of school districts not reversed if reasonably exercised.
    
    1. The power of the Quarter Sessions to remove school directors from office, is limited by the 9th section of the Act of May 8th 1854, relating to common schools.
    2. The temporary consolidation of schools in a district is a matter of discretion of the board of directors, and when reasonably exercised will not be interfered with by the courts.
    CbetioRARI to the Quarter Sessions of Crawford county.
    
    This was a proceeding in the court below, founded on the petition of James A. Heard, and five other taxable citizens of Blooming Yalley School District, in Woodcock township, Crawford county.
    The petition, which was filed May 10th 1862, set forth:— “ That the petitioners are citizens and residents; that J. W. Cummings, William Lang, William Ballet, Bussel Harroon, William George, and David Cole, school directors in and for the township of Woodcock aforesaid, and which embraces the school district No. — as aforesaid; that the said directors, by virtue of authority vested in them as directors duly qualified and acting as such in the premises, have resolved upon such action as, if carried out, will deprive the citizens taxable of the village of Blooming Valley, interested in the correct application and appropriation of the school-fund in such locality, of their rights and privileges under the School Law, by refusing them a teacher, and denying them a school in such Blooming Valley District the coming summer, and compelling them by an arbitrary and unauthorized order to send their children to a school-house in an adjoining district, or in default to forfeit all right to any and all participation in the school-fund in their vicinity, and the advantages connected therewith and flowing therefrom — Praying for a citation directed to the directors aforesaid, commanding them to appear upon a day fixed and certain, and show cause, if they can, 4 why their seats should not be declared vacant, and others appointed in their places, and such other and further orders be made as will effectually and completely secure your petitioners and others to you not named, but alike interested, the enjoyment of their legal rights in the premises, and to the more effectual protection of the rights of your petitioners in the premises may it please your honour to order and direct an admonitory order to issue to the defendants, commanding them to suspend all action in the premises until the hearing in this case, or the further order of this court,’ ” with the usual affidavit.
    On the 19th of May 1862, the school directors appeared and filed their answer, justifying their action in the premises, insisting that it was entirely free from partiality, and, in their judgment, best for the interests of all concerned, but offering to establish another school in Blooming Valley, if the court should deem the action of the board injudicious.
    The court appointed G. W. Hecker, Esq., to take testimony and report the facts, who reported that “two school districts (the Cowan and Blooming Valley) adjoining each other were consolidated into one last spring and summer by the respondents, refusing to allow a school in the Valley. This was opposed by the complainants. There was no school in the Valley last summer. There is one now, which commenced last December. There is a sufficient number of pupils in the valley to warrant a school there as well in the summer-time as in the winter-time, and a house large and convenient enough to accommodate them. This district was made in 1851, and teachers employed there from that time till last summer, when the school in the Valley was united with the Cowan district. The distance from the Valley to the Cowan house is increased from a half to three-quarters of a mile. A number of families in tbe Valley were without a school last summer on account of this arrangement. There are no graded schools in this township. The directors of this township, in several instances heretofore, have consolidated districts in the summer-time, where no objections were made. The Cowan house is a larger, newer, and better house than the Valley house. The Valley house is a good second-class frame house, and convenient for all pupils of the Valley. Exhibits of the average number of pupils attending these schools were returned, and made a part of his report. A large majority of the citizens of the Valley desired a school there last summer. The Valley school is one of the largest in the township.”
    On hearing, the court below (JOHNSON, P. J.) dismissed the petition on the ground that there was nothing in the case, as presented by the evidence, to give the court jurisdiction, or authorize its interference with the exercise of that discretion which the law has vested in the directors; which was the error assigned.
    
      Pettis and Davis, for complainants.
    
      Pinney and Douglas, for respondents.
    October 26th 1863,
   The opinion of the court was delivered,

by

Woodward, J.

The power of the Quarter Sessions to remove school directors is defined in the 9th section of the Act of 8th May 1854, relating to common schools, Purd. 168, and wo think that the complainants did not bring their case within that section. What they complain of is not the refusal or neglect of all the directors of Woodcock township to perform their duties, but of the manner of performance. They consolidated the schools of Blooming Valley and of the Cowan House for the summer of 1861. This was the wrong complained of.

That it was a matter of discretion for them is shown by the letters of the state superintendent, and that it was exercised upon a sufficient basis of facts is shown by the proofs and exhibits, and by the opinion of the learned judge. There is some ground to doubt the legal existence of sucia a sub-district as that of Blooming Valley, but if it were a legally existing district, there was no hardship in taking its pupils into the adjoining district for the summer, where the average attendance of both the schools did not exceed thirty-four, and the utmost distance that any pupil had to travel was a mile and a half. That number of scholars is not unreasonable for a single school, nor is that distance excessive over a good summer road.

The clearly vested discretion of the directors seems therefore to have been reasonably exercised, and consequently the court had no legal authority to remove or restrain them.

The decree is affirmed.