153 Ga. 438 | Ga. | 1922
1. Under the pleadings and the evidence the court was authorized to find that the school district was lawfully created. There was evidence tending to show that the respective boards of education in the two counties had, about ten years previous to the filing of this suit, laid off their counties into districts leaving well-designated areas adjacent to the Town of Maysville, wherein it was provided that the school children should attend the public schools in Maysville, and for a number of years the respective boards of education had paid to the Board of Education of Maysville the proportionate part of the public-school fund due to said respective parts of adjacent territory. Concurrent action on the part of the two boards to create the district lying in two counties was not required to be done by simultaneous acts, but a substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required. „
2. The election for the special tax was not illegal, and the election was not void because the order calling the same provided that the tickets should be printed “ for local taxation ” and “ against local taxation,” instead of “ for local taxation for public schools ” and “ against local taxation for public schools,” as provided by statute. A substantial compliance in this respect is sufficient. DuPre v. Cotton, 134 Ga. 310 (1 a), 319 (67 S. E. 876).
3. The board of education performing the duties thereof for the district are at least de facto trustees, and their official actions are valid as such, and cannot be attacked collaterally. Brown v. Flake, 102 Ga. 528 (29 S. E. 267); DeLoach v. Newton, 134 Ga. 739 (3 a), 742 (68 S. E. 708, 20 Ann. Cas. 342); Tucker v. Roberts, 151 Ga. 753 (108 S. E. 222).
4. Neither the election nor the assessment of the tax nor the fi. fa. is illegal on the ground that the same constitutes taxation without representation as to those residing within the school district but without the limits of the Town of Maysville, the de facto trustees all residing in Maysville.
5. The fact that no election was ever held for the purpose of electing trustees, as provided in the Civil Code, § 1533, does not invalidate the acts of the de facto trustees, .of which complaint is herein made. The court was authorized to find that the petitioner participated in the election for local taxation, and is a patron receiving the benefits of the school supported in part by the local tax. Even if he is not estopped from making complaint, under the pleadings and the evidence the court was authorized to refuse the interlocutory injunction. Irvin v. Gregory, 86 Ga. 605 (13 S. E. 120).
6. The tax fi. fa. recites the necessary jurisdictional facts. It shows the amount of property returned, the amount of the tax, the number of the return, the number of the district, the State and county, the levying officers to whom addressed, the date of its issue, the official by whom it was issued, and that it was for a school tax. Vickers v. Hawkins, 128 Ga. 794 (58 S. E. 44).
■Judgment affirmed.