The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1902-02-21
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Points Decided by the Supreme Court In
the Schoolhouse Case-The Change
of Location Unlawful.
THE State, 18th.

The state, 1th.
Jefferson A. Sligh ct al, respond
ent VS.. Geo. w. Bowers ct al appel
lants.-Locsting schoolhouse. Pow
ers of trustees. Statutory provisions.
Pleading. Practice.
This is an action by the plaintiffs
as citizens and freeholders Of New
berry county, residents and patrons
of school district No 19 in said county,
for an injunction to restrain the
trustees of said district from erecting
certain school building contem
plated.
For about eight years prior to
March 1901, the school house in
question was on the site, and was in
that month destroyed by fire. There
after the majority of the trustees
proceeded 10 erect new building on
new site. Thereupon this action
was brought to restrain such erection.
The defendants first demurred to
the complaint on the grounds ID
that the court was without jurisdic-
tion of the subject matter of the &C.
tion, (2) that the plaintiffs have an
adequate remedy provided by statnte,
and (3) that the plaintiffs have not
exhausted their remedy under the
statute by submitting the matters in
controversy to the county board of
education and thence by appeal to
the state board.
The circuit court (Judge Gage)
overruled the demurrer, granted and
referred the cause to the master to
take testimony and report his find
ings therein. The defendants ap-
pealed.
So much of the school law as is in
volved in the consideration of pres
ent appeal is to be found in sections
26, 20, 80, 81 and 80 of the act of
1899 declaring the general school
law of this State.
The said school law provides that
while the board of trustees have the
management and control of the school
district, they are "subject to the sup
ervision and orders of the board of
education;" that the county board of
education is a tribunal for deter
mining any matter of local contro-
versy in reference to the construc-
ton or administration of the school
laws, X x " and then they have made
a decision that shall be binding upon
the parties to the controversy.
The complaint alleges that the
first site was located and established
by the board of trustees in 1893,
which was afterwards confirmed by
three successive county boards Of
education, and that when petitions
were presented to two of said board,
asking for the change of said site,
the granting of the same was refused.
As the decision of the county board
of education was binding until re-
versed by that board it was unlawful
for the board of trustees to change
the site.
The complaint also alleges that
the board of trustees "are now build
ing and erecting, with the public
funds set apart for said school dis
trict, a school house for said district
at another place." Such building is
al unlawful use of the public funds,
which the court in the exercise of its
equitable power will enjoln.
The right of resident taxpay ers to
invoke the interposition of equity to
prevent an illegal disposition of the
moneys of the district cannot be
questioned. (Crompton vs.. Zabrlskl,
| 1O1 U. S. 500; cases cited by Mr..
Chief Justice McIver in Butler VS..
EIlerbe, A S. G. 28.)
The circuit court had jurisdiction
in the premises, and the complaint
states facts sufficient to constitut , q
cause of action.
Order below affirmed. Opinion by
Mr.. Justice Gary. Filed Feb. II.
Messrs. HUT, Hunt & Hunter for
appellants; Messrs. Schumpert &
Holloway for respondents.
VEIN DnWN nv NEGROES