Barrett v. Haas

84 Pa. D. & C. 142, 1951 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 6
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County
DecidedOctober 8, 1951
DocketNo. 1; no. 173
StatusPublished

This text of 84 Pa. D. & C. 142 (Barrett v. Haas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barrett v. Haas, 84 Pa. D. & C. 142, 1951 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 6 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1951).

Opinion

Smith, J.,

Plaintiffs filed their bill to restrain defendants from taking any action purporting to change the status of a certain township school district. No facts are in dispute. They have all been stipulated.

Pursuant to an election duly held November 8,1949, the Township of Lackawanna was, on the first Monday of January 1950 annexed to and became part of the City of Scranton — a city of the second class A— for municipal purposes. Prior to the annexation the School District of Lackawanna Township was a separate school district of the fourth class with territory coextensive with that of the annexed township. The School District of the City of Scranton is a school district of the second class.

On November 28, 1949, the Superintendent of the Lackawanna County Schools asked the Superintendent of Public Instruction to advise him as to the effect, if any, the aforesaid annexation proceedings had on the status of the School District of Lackawanna Township. On December 5, 1949, he was told by the Department of Public Instruction that these proceedings did not affect the boundaries of the School District of Lackawanna Township; that sections 227 and 228 of the Public School Code of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, as amended, required approval by the State Council of Education before any change in the boundaries of the school district could be effected; and that receipt by the Superintendent of Public Instruction of a certified court record of the annexation proceedings would be deemed to be an application to the State Council of Education for a change in the boundaries thereof. Such certified record, including the decree of the court and the vote of the electors effecting such annexation, was thereupon forwarded to and received by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. However, thereafter, on February 1,1950, upon request of the Super[144]*144intendent of Public Instruction, the Department of Justice advised him that the State Council of Education had no jurisdiction in the matter and that, without any action by the council, it was his mandatory duty to issue a certificate to the effect that the territory comprising the School District of Lackawanna Township was annexed to and became a part of the School District of the City of Scranton on the first Monday of July 1950. Accordingly, the State Council of Education, following the advice of the Department of Justice, took no action in the matter.

Plaintiffs, taxpayers, property owners and residents of the territory formerly known as Lackawanna Township, on June 29, 1950, thereupon filed their bill in this court. After pleading the facts hereinbefore set forth, they averred, in paragraph 15 thereof, “that the defendant, State Council of Education, having jurisdiction over annexations and being empowered to approve, disapprove or refuse changes in school districts of the fourth class, was not given an opportunity to exercise its discretion” and, further, in paragraph 16 thereof, “that the various departments, agencies and State officers are not in accord on the question as to whether or not the School District of Lackawanna Township will be annexed, without a proper determination by the State Council of Education, to the School District of the City of Scranton, by virtue of the annexation of the territory of the Township of Lackawanna to the territory of the City of Scranton for municipal purposes.”

Plaintiffs in their bill then prayed for both temporary and permanent relief enjoining and restraining defendants from taking any action to put into effect the advice given by the Department of Justice to the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

On plaintiff’s prayer, a preliminary injunction was, on June 29, 1950, issued by this court, and July 5, [145]*1451950, fixed as a time for the hearing to continue the same. On the date last mentioned, counsel for all parties in interest entered into and filed a stipulation, approved by the court, wherein it was agreed that the preliminary injunction should be continued “until hearing to be fixed by the court at a time convenient to the parties hereto.” Defendants then filed their answers to the bill wherein they averred that the State Council of Education had no authority or jurisdiction to pass upon the question of the annexation of the School District of Lackawanna Township to the School District of the City of Scranton.

Pursuant to a further stipulation by counsel for all parties in interest, approved by the court September 29, 1950, it was agreed under the facts as therein set forth, that the only question before this court was one of law requiring an interpretation of certain provisions of two acts of assembly as particularly specified in paragraph 12, thereof, to wit: Act of June 15,1939, P. L. 372, sec. 7, 53 PS §10717; Act of March 10,1949, P. L. 30, as amended, secs. 205(2), 226, and 401(6), 24 PS §2-205(2), 2-226, 4-401(6), and then “apply the law to decide whether or not by virtue of the municipal election the School District of Lackawanna Township becomes annexed to the School District of the City of Scranton as of the beginning of the first school year (first Monday of July 1950) after such annexation has been effected.”

Discussion

All parties in interest agree that the determination of the issue presented by the pleadings and the stipulation of September 29, 1950, depends solely upon the construction of the provisions of the Public School Code of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, 24 PS §1-101 et seq. And this because the Act of June 15, 1939, P. L. 372, authorizing, inter alia, the annexation of townships [146]*146to cities of the second class A provides, section 7, 53 PS §10717, that:

“Nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect the common school laws applicable to the territorial limits of the municipalities involved, nor shall such annexation bring about any merger or consolidation of school districts nor change in any way the rights, liabilities or territorial limits thereof.”

Plaintiffs filed their bill under the theory that, irrespective of the physical annexation of the entire Township of Lackawanna to the City of Scranton for municipal purposes, the School District of Lackawanna Township, although its territory was coextensive with that of the annexed township, did not become a part of the School District of the City of Scranton until the State Council of Education had taken the appropriate action approving such change as provided by sections 227 and 228 of the Public School Code of 1949, 24 PS §§2-227-228.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wilkinsburg Borough v. Wilkinsburg Borough School District
74 A.2d 138 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Baldwin Township's Annexation
158 A. 272 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Bethlehem School District Appeal
41 A.2d 713 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1945)
Irwin Borough Annexation Case (No. 2)
67 A.2d 765 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1949)
In Re Annexation of Baldwin Township
158 A. 316 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 Pa. D. & C. 142, 1951 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-haas-pactcompldauphi-1951.