#### David D. Brody v. The Township Board of the Township of Penn.

*School inspectors: Appeal to town board: Waiver: Certiorari.*Parties appealing tinder tlie statute from the action of school inspectors in arranging school-districts, to the town hoard, thereby waive those questions which require judicial review and submit themselves to the discretion of that body; and a *certiorari*to the town board does not open for review the doings of the inspectors.

*Discretionary administration: Town board: School inspectors.*It was never intended that a court should exercise any of these powers of discretion- / ary administration; and where, on such an appeal, the town board acted within its jurisdiction, its discretion cannot be reviewed by the courts; and if it did not, and its acts were void, then under the statute the action of the inspectors, after ten days, is equally intact and beyond disturbance. v

*School inspectors:. Town board: Appeals.*Where, however, the town board, acting without authority, reverses the action of the inspectors, their doings may be overturned; but an order of the board affirming the action of the inspectors, whether properly or improperly, only leaves such action where it would have been without such interference.

*Submitted on briefs June 10.*

*Decided June 18.*

*Certiorari*to tbe Township Board of the township of Penn, in the county of Cass.

*Howell & Carr,*for plaintiff in *certiorari.*

No counsel appeared for defendants in *certiorari.*

*273CAMPBELL, J :

Relators appealed to the township board of Penn, against an order of the school inspectors, whereby a half section was taken from one primary-school district, and added to a graded and high-school district.

The grounds of appeal set forth no irregularity, except an alleged want of consent of the trustees of the graded district. The other grounds are merely reasons of policy, and that was not well founded. The town board affirmed the action of the inspectors.

The statute which gives the appeal to the town board requires that their action shall be taken within ten days from the return, and' requires further, that the decision of the school inspectors “shall not be altered or reversed, unless a majority of such township board, not members of said board or boards of inspectors, shall so *determine.”*— G. *L.*§ *3736.*

It is evident that the policy of the law is against any needless interference with the action of the school inspectors, who have full discretion in arranging districts, except as to graded schools, and, .with the consent of their trustees, may change those also. By fixing the brief period of ten days, within which the town board must act, the statute plainly disapproves of delays in the settlement of these matters of administration. The appeal to the town board is not on legal questions, but transfers to them the came discretionary authority which the inspectors have when there is no appeal. And by appealing to the town board, the parties appealing waive those questions which require judicial review, and submit themselves to the discretion of that body; and a *certiorari*to the town board does not open the doings of the inspectors.

It never was intended that a court should exercise any of these powers of discretionary administration. And it cannot be lawful on such a writ as this, to disturb the action of the inspectors, when the statute declares it shall stand, unless changed within ton days by the town board. If that *274body acted within its jurisdiction, we cannot review its discretion. If it did not, and its acts were void, the inspectors’ action is equally intact, and beyond disturbance.

If the board, acting without authority of law, reversed the action of the inspectors, we might be obliged to undo their order. But an order of the board affirming it, whether properly or improperly, only leaves the action of the inspectors as it would have been without such interference. And a *certiorari*to the town board, as already suggested, cannot review the acts of the inspectors.

The writ must be quashed as improvidently granted, with costs against relators.

The other Justices concurred.