The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1897-11-11

ligious worship. 1t is equally apparent that
the defendants were OF the party who desired
to use the building for election and other pur-
poses, and IL is apparent also that they were
untriendly to the carrying out of the purposes
and support Of the trust created by the trust
deed above copied. In addition to this, it is
clear that the trustees who had had charge
prior to the election Of those school directors,
the defendants, had carried out the purposes of
the trust as expressed in the deed in full com
pliance with the letter and spirit Of the trust,
! and that they were proceeding to do so.
The Chancellor heard the cause, and entered
u decree which appears to be in the nature of a
compromise
In this decree he declared that the defendants,
as school directors OF the Third Distaict school
| Of Unicoi county, were vested with the right Of
entry aud control for public school purposes Of
the property conveyed by the deed OF the Peeb-
les Brothers, to make any needed repairs,
which do not obStruct or impair the other pur-
poses of the dedication, and to this end were
entitled to key or keys to the locks on the
doors OF the building and for their use OF
ingress and egress on school days.
Al buC SGCOuu pLdCS uG utCldItu IudL GI6 lTub-
tees appointed In the deed and their success
sors were entitled to the possession, manage
ment and control OF the building for the other
purposes for which the property was dedicated
and TO the quiet and unobstructed use of the
building for such purposes, and to make any
/ repuirs which do not interfere or obstruct the
school rights, and were entitled to free entrance
on all other days than the days on when the
public schools wero taught III the building and
to lock and unlock the doors on such days; but
that on days and at times when the public
school was being taught in the building the
trustees should not enter and use the same
without the consent Of the teacher and diroc-
| tors
Both parties were enjoined from interfering
with the rights of each other as therein declared
The costs OF the cause were divided.
The Chaneellor's deree in SO far as 1t gave the
school directors partial control over this
building was evidently based on the idea that
the provisions Of this statute as continued in
Code, Shannon, Sec. l44l, that common school
houses and the property attached or appurte-
nant thereto ore under the custody and control
OF the school directors In which they are stu
ated, and of subsection 10 of Sec. 1880. Shan
non, that 1t is the duty Of the directors to take
care of manage and control public school prop
erty Of the district
But in our opinion this is misrepresentation
OF the law. The property Of which they are
thus placed in control by the law, referred to In
these provisions, is evidently property pro-
cured and purchased by the public school mon
ey, and belonging as matter of right to the
school district This class of property is by
the law placed under the exclusive charge and
control of the school directors. In our opinion
these provisions of the statute regulating pub
lie schools have no reference to property Of the
character shown in this record, which has been
dedicated by individuals to the uses and pur-
poses of certain we'll defined trusts.
In the case of Frost VS.. Byrd, in the manu-
script opinion by Judge Wilkes at Knoxville,
Sept, term, l8- it was held to be contrary to
law and public policy to allow the public school
money to be invested in any property of this
character Judge Wilkes said in the opinon
I'VE ace of the opinion that is contrary to
law and to public policy to allow the public
policy to allow the public school money to be
In property in which any religious denomination
or society or any other person has any interests
or rights, Cnnstant contention friction is sure
to arise while the building is being so used and
when it is desired to sell it, the respective
rights OF the parties would inevitably draw
them into litigation"
And In that case the investment of public
funds in school property for the joint purpose
of school site and religious worship was it,
habited, This holding was reiterated in IL c
case of Jones VS.. Byrd, opinion by Judge Neil
at Knoxville, special September term 1898
This, however does not in our opinion pre-
vent or inhabit school directors, when neces-
!, sary, from using building Of this character by
permission OF the trustees nor from making
any suitable arrangement, when necessary, fol-
the rent and occupation of the building for the