The herald., 1897-06-29


pie living outside Of the original dis
trict the benefits of the property ac-
quired by taxation of the property en-
braced within the original district. There
is also seeming injustice in contrac citing
the territory Of the original district, and
thus depriving people of the benefits of
| the property which they have contrib
uted toward purchasing There may be
hardship resulting from the making of
the changes and yet the courts be power
| less to review the acts which have
brought those changes about because
| the acts were in accordance with the
constitutional laws. In this case, by a
| change in the corporate limits of the
city of Los Angeles, the property in
question including a school house there
on erected by plaintiff was taken
| into corporate limits of the city of Los
Angeles.
The legal title continued in trust.
Any change in the status of the
property must therefore arise from
consideration of the beneficiaries. The
individuals Of Vernon school district.
as such, did not own an equity in the
property. The equities in the property
which the Vernon school district owned,
it owned as political corporation for
the purposes above indicated.
zone who contributes nothing towards
the purchase of school property or the
erection Of a school house, but who be-
longs to the corporate body has the
same interest in the use of the property
as the owner of valuable property with
in the district who has contributed
much. Taxpayers can maintain ac-
tions to restrain unlawful actions by Of
ficers of the district which would have a
tendency to increase their taxes, but
not as members of the political corpora
ton. One moving out of the district and
leaving his property therein ceases to be
a member Of the corporate body, but he
retains the right to restrain an unlaw
full imposition upon his property. One
moving into the district taking no prop
erty with him has the right to have his
children educated in the school on an
equality with the largest property owner
in the district
For these and other obvious reasons
it clearly appears that the right to the
beneficial use of such school property
does not depend upon who paid the con-
sideration for the property or upon who
erected the school house The duty of
Tie COTpOTdllOu was IOl " PLONidS q
school for the benefit of the taxpayers
of Vernon school district, but for the
education of children living within the |
corporate limits of the district irrespec- |
tive of where the cost of the property |
came from. The education of children |
was the object of the organization of the |
district, and the acquisition of the |
property. The children to be educated |
were not necessarily the children of |
certain persons or the children living in |
certain places, but such children as, un-
der the laws. might be more conven-
iently educated in such school house.
THE laws which provided for the or
ganization of the district and the ac-
quisition of the school property also
provided for the making of changes in
the boundaries of the district. The no.
tion that the property owned by such a
remains the property of the
after a division of the dis
trict where the property falls within
the portions segregated from the ter
ritory of the original corporation Is
based upon an underlined claim of in
dividuals in the public property. The
in question was held for the
education of children irrespective of any
interest in the property of any one in
dividual over another. The property has
not been diverted from that use but ju-
over it Is no longer vested in
plaintiff or its trustees, but has fallen
to the lot of the defendant. This posi-
tion not only follows from an analysis
of the purposes of the acquisition of
such school property, the duties
of school trustees respecting the
same, and the beneficiaries of the trust,
but is sustained by the authorities.
1T follows that the plaintiff is not the
owner of said school property, and that
the board of education of the city of Los
Angeles are the successors to the trus
tees of Vernon school district in the con-
troll of the same. Judgment will there
fore be entered that the plaintiff take
nothing by it's complaint but without
costs to ether party"