Case Name: BOARD of COM'RS of CARTER COUNTY et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 71 of CARTER COUNTY
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1928-12-11
Citations: 135 Okla. 248
Docket Number: No. 18274
Parties: BOARD of COM’RS of CARTER COUNTY et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 71 of CARTER COUNTY.
Judges: MASON, Y. C. J., and LESTER, HUNT, and HEFNER, J.I., concur.’
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 248–249

Head Matter:
BOARD of COM’RS of CARTER COUNTY et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 71 of CARTER COUNTY.
No. 18274.
Opinion Filed Dec. 11, 1928.
Rehearing Denied March 12, 1929.
F. M. Dudley, for plaintiffs in error.
Stephen A.' George and M. W. Eddleman, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
RILEY, J.
The plaintiff below, defendant in error, is a common school district. This action is maintained by it to recover from the county treasurer of Garter county for the seevral years the difference between the whole p'er capita apportionment of the common school fund based upon the scholastic census within the district and that amount paid to it based upon the majority scholastic enumeration. School district No. 71 is the majority school, and it has received the full apportionment of state aid funds calculated on the majority of the scholastic population for which its school is maintained. By this action it claims that portion of the fund which was retained by the county treasurer and which should be expended for the benefit of the separate schools and which portion is bas'ed upon the minority scholastic population residing within the district.
The decision in the ease of School Dist. No. 7, Creek County, v. Board of Commissioners, Creek County, No. 18373, decided February 7, 1928, 135 Okla. 1, 275 Pac. 292 (rehearing denied Dec. 4, 1928), is decisive of the issue herein. Therein the court held:
"The plaintiff has neither authority nor control over the separate school in district No. 7. There is no statute that authorizes it to receive or disburse the funds belonging to the separate school. All this authority was by the Legislature placed in other hands. It, therefore, follows, that.it is not 'entitled to recover the funds sued for."
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, with instructions to enter judgment for the defendants.
MASON, Y. C. J., and LESTER, HUNT, and HEFNER, J.I., concur.'
BRANSON, O. J,, and PHELPS, J. dissent.