Clark v. Curtiss

Ohio Court of Appeals

Clark v. Curtiss

162 N.E. 637, 28 Ohio App. 129, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 680, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 433

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 23, 1927

Docket253

StatusPublished

This text of 162 N.E. 637 (Clark v. Curtiss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Curtiss, 162 N.E. 637, 28 Ohio App. 129, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 680, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

LLOYD, J.

Plaintiff, a citizen and taxpayer of West Perkins Rural School District in this county, on behalf of himself and other taxpayers thereof, seeks to enjoin the defendants, some of whom are members of and acting as the Board of Deputy State Supervisors of Elections of Erie County and others of whom are presiding judges of certain election precincts in Perkins Rural School District, from proceeding with an election to be held in said latter school district pursuant to and in conformity with 4735-1 and 4735-2 GC.

The above mentioned school districts formerly constituted one district and recently were divided into two school districts by proceedings had by the county board of education of Erie County, under authority of 4736 GC. By the election thus sought to be held, if a majority voting thereat favors such proposal, it is planned to re-unite these two districts by dissolution of Perkins Rural School District and joining the same to the newly created West Perkins Special School District, thus, in effect, undoing what the County Board of , Education had done by the taking from what was then Perkins Rural School District that part thereof now constituting West Perkins Special School District.

The plaintiff claims that the proceedings had, and the election to be held pursuant thereto, are a nullity because, he says, Sections 4735-1 and 4735-2 GC., being irreconcilably in conflict with 4736 GC., are, by implication, repealed thereby. The act creating *681 these sections was passed in 1914. Some _ of the sections included in this act, among which are 4735-1, 4735-2 and 4736, were amendments of sections theretofore in force. 104 O. L. 133 et seq.

Sections 4735-1 and 4735-2 have not been amended and read now as when enacted in 1914. Section 4736 was amended in 1916 (106 O. L. 397) and in 1919 (108 O. L. part I, pg. 707) was again amended to read as it now appears in the General Code.

An examination of these several sections discloses that if any conflict existed, such conflict has continuously existed to a greater or less degree since their enactment in 1914, at which time, the General Assembly expressed, in the title of the enactment containing these sections, as well as in the act itself, an intent that all of them should he equally operative. We are unable to agree with plaintiif that the statutory provisions in question are in conflict simply because the procedure authorized by 4735-1 and 4735-2, if successfully consummated, may result in combining into one school district, territory which has theretofore constituted á single district but had been divided into two districts by the county board of education, pursuant to the authority conferred by 4736 GC.

We are therefore unable to conclude that 4736 was intended as a substitute for 4735-1 and 4735-2, or that these latter sections are so clearly in conflict with 4736 as not to be reconcilable therewith.

(Richards and Williams, JJ., concur.)

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

LLOYD, J.

Plaintiff, a citizen and taxpayer of West Perkins Rural School District in this county, on behalf of himself and other taxpayers thereof, seeks to enjoin the defendants, some of whom are members of and acting as the Board of Deputy State Supervisors of Elections of Erie County and others of whom are presiding judges of certain election precincts in Perkins Rural School District, from proceeding with an election to be held in said latter school district pursuant to and in conformity with 4735-1 and 4735-2 GC.

The above mentioned school districts formerly constituted one district and recently were divided into two school districts by proceedings had by the county board of education of Erie County, under authority of 4736 GC. By the election thus sought to be held, if a majority voting thereat favors such proposal, it is planned to re-unite these two districts by dissolution of Perkins Rural School District and joining the same to the newly created West Perkins Special School District, thus, in effect, undoing what the County Board of , Education had done by the taking from what was then Perkins Rural School District that part thereof now constituting West Perkins Special School District.

The plaintiff claims that the proceedings had, and the election to be held pursuant thereto, are a nullity because, he says, Sections 4735-1 and 4735-2 GC., being irreconcilably in conflict with 4736 GC., are, by implication, repealed thereby. The act creating *681 these sections was passed in 1914. Some _ of the sections included in this act, among which are 4735-1, 4735-2 and 4736, were amendments of sections theretofore in force. 104 O. L. 133 et seq.

Sections 4735-1 and 4735-2 have not been amended and read now as when enacted in 1914. Section 4736 was amended in 1916 (106 O. L. 397) and in 1919 (108 O. L. part I, pg. 707) was again amended to read as it now appears in the General Code.

An examination of these several sections discloses that if any conflict existed, such conflict has continuously existed to a greater or less degree since their enactment in 1914, at which time, the General Assembly expressed, in the title of the enactment containing these sections, as well as in the act itself, an intent that all of them should he equally operative. We are unable to agree with plaintiif that the statutory provisions in question are in conflict simply because the procedure authorized by 4735-1 and 4735-2, if successfully consummated, may result in combining into one school district, territory which has theretofore constituted á single district but had been divided into two districts by the county board of education, pursuant to the authority conferred by 4736 GC.

We are therefore unable to conclude that 4736 was intended as a substitute for 4735-1 and 4735-2, or that these latter sections are so clearly in conflict with 4736 as not to be reconcilable therewith.

(Richards and Williams, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 N.E. 637, 28 Ohio App. 129, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 680, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-curtiss-ohioctapp-1927.