21 Ind. 317 | Ind. | 1863
Joseph Goudie, for himself and others, instituted a proceeding, by mandate, against Jacob Trager, as trus
Goudie, and others, to the number of thirteen, citizens of sections numbered 36, 25 and 34, in Brookville township, Franklin county, having children entitled to the privilege of attending common school, by petition, represented to the trustee of said township, that they had been, for some time past, deprived of the benefit of such school, on account of the great distance, and asked him, amongst other things, to constitute them into a district for school purposes, and to adopt the school house they then held in the corner of Joseph Goudie’s field, and to grant them their share of the school funds. The prayer of their petition was refused by A. B. Herndon, the then trustee of the township, and an appeal from his decision was granted by him to the School Examiner of the county, who, having received the appeal, decided that an additional school be located, as prayed for by the petitioners, to which they were to be attached for school purposes, and that in the then next distribution of the school revenue, said school be placed on an equal footing with other schools of the several districts of the township. It is alleged that Herndon, as such trustee, while in office, failed to comply with the decision of the School Examiner, and that Trager, the present trustee, has also refused compliance therewith, &e. The relief sought is, that a writ of mandate issue, requiring Trager, as such trustee, to locate a school, as prayed for by the petitioners, according to the decision of the School Examiner, &c.
To this complaint, the defendant, Trager, appeared and answered:
1. That the proceedings recited in the complaint are without authority of law, and void; that school districts can not be changed, or sites for new school houses located by or on
2. That defendant, and his predecessors in office, have established a sufficient number of schools in said township, for the education and convenience .of all the children therein; have built, and otherwise provided, a sufficient number of school houses for the convenience and education of said children, and the location of the school prayed for would be a useless expenditure, &c.
3. The school house already erected in the district is sufficiently commodious and conveniently located for the accommodation of all the.children of the district, &e., and there is not a sufficient number of children therein to support two schools, &c.
4. That after the filing of the petition referred to in the complaint, and the decision of the School Examiner, the director of the district, in which said petitioners reside, regularly called a- school meeting of the inhabitants therein, at which meeting they, the inhabitants, determined to retain in that district all the territory embraced within its boundaries prior to the decision of the School Examiner; and, further, they, at said meeting, petitioned the trustee, through their directoi’, to disregard the decision of the Examiner, &e.
Plaintiff demurred to the answer. The demurrer was sustained, and final judgment was accordingly given, &c.
The first defence involves the main inquiry in the case. Were the proceedings, recited in the complaint,- inoperative and void? If they were not, then it was the duty of the trustee to carry into effect the decision of the School Examiner. An act to provide for a general system of common schools, &c., points out the duties of the trustee. It says: “He shall take charge of the educational affairs of the township, and establish, and conveniently locate, a sufficient number of schools therein, for the education of the children.
An objection is made as to the sufficiency of the affidavit, upon which the proceeding is based; but, having looked into
Per Curiam. — The judgment is affirmed, with costs.