County Board of Education v. Thompson

25 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 431
CourtAthens County Court of Common Pleas
DecidedApril 15, 1925
StatusPublished

This text of 25 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 431 (County Board of Education v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Athens County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
County Board of Education v. Thompson, 25 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 431 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1925).

Opinion

Woes tell, J.

This cause is one for injunction and was submitted to the court on the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts.

Athens county is one of the counties of Ohio and, excepting the cities and exempted villages therein, constitutes a county school district. Dover township is one of the townships of Athens county and, excepting the village of Chauncey, constitutes a rural school district. Chauncey village is an incorporated village with fewer than three thousand inhabitants and is located wholly within the territorial limits of said Dover township and constitutes a village school district.

Said county school district, said rural school district, and .said village school district each have a board of education. Said rural school district and said village school district are united for high school purposes under the provisions of Section 7669 of the General Code, and maintain a first grade high school.

From the year 1913 to March 18, 1922, said Dover township rural school district and said Chauncey village school district appointed the same person as superintendent of schools of said two districts. From March 18, 1922, until May 21, 1924, the boards of education of said two districts did not appoint or employ a superintendent jointly nor did either appoint or employ a superintendent for its respective district, but by resolution passed in a joint meeting of the board's of education of said districts, requested the. county superintendent to have an assistant comity superintendent [433]*433help in the supervision of the schools in said district,- or joint district, which was done.

On the 21st day of May, 1924, the board of education of said village district passed the following motions, to-wit:

“a. That we ask exemption under Section 4740, on the approval of the state.”

”b. Mr. Blackford nominates Professor Thompson for superintendent ' of said district, seconded by Palmer and that we recommend, a salary of twenty-five hundred dollars per year, on approval of the state.”

On the same day the board of education of said rural school district passed the following motions, to-wit:

‘ ‘ Resolution by Fisk that Dover township rural board of education of Athens county, Ohio, does hereby deem it necessary as well as advisable for the best interests of our schools to create a school district with the Chauneey village board of education, in conformity to Section 4740 General Code, and to petition or make application according to the provisions of said Section 4740 General Code to the county .board of education of Athens county, Ohio, to recognize said district as such.”

On the same day a joint meeting of the boards of education . of said rural and village districts passed the following motions:

"a,. That we ask exemption from the county under Section 4740 of the Ohio school laws with approval of the state department. [

“b. That we hire Professor Thompson as superintendent for the said 4740 district and recommend a salary of twenty-five hundred dollars per year, upon the state’s approval.”

“e. That the term of said election of superintendent be for a period of one year.”

The Professor Thompson referred to in the above motions and resolutions is the defendant in this action, Bert M. Thompson. Since the beginning of the school year of 1924-25 until the bringing of this action, the defendant assumed to act as superintendent of the Chauneey village schools and' the [434]*434Dover township rural schools, including the joint high school in which he taught part time, and one of the regularly appointed assistant county superintendents has been assigned to supervise said schools for said year of .1924-25 and he is performing his duties in such respect.

From the foregoing agreed statement of facts the court concludes that neither said village board nor said township board attempted to elect Mr. Thompson superintendent of schools of their respective districts, but they did intend to form a joint district composed of said two districts and to elect him superintendent of said joint district.

This action is brought by the county board of education to enjoin Mr. Thompson from acting as superintendent of the schools of said village district and said rural district and said proposed joint district.

The hoards of education of said two districts assumed to act under the provisions of G. C. 4740 to unite their districts into a union district for supervision purposes and to elect Mr. Thompson superintendent of the schools of said union district. Said section is as follows:

“Any village or wholly centralized rural school district or union of school districts for high school purposes which maintains a first grade high school and which employs a superintendent, upon the nomination of a county superintendent, shall upon application to the county board of education before June first of any year be placed under the supervision of the county superintendent. Such superistendent shall be employed by the local boards of education upon the nomination of the county superintendent, but the local board of education by majority vote of its full membership may employ a superintendent not so nominated. Such superintendent shall perform the duties prescribed by law for assistant county superintendents, but shall teach such part of the day as the board of education of the district or districts may direct.” 109 Ohio Laws, 243.

This section recognizes the existence of a union of school districts for high school purposes which maintain a first grade high school and which employs a superintendent; but, [435]*435it does not .provide for tlie creation of such a union of districts, and we find no existing law by which two or more districts may unite for supervision purposes. It will be necessary therefor, to look into the history of school legislation to ascertain how such existing union -of districts for supervision purposes came into existence.

As a part of an act passed April 25, 1904, found in Ohio Laws 97 on pages 362-3, is Section 4017-a R. S., is the following :

‘1 The board of education of each village, township and special school district may appoint a suitable person to act as superintendent, and to employ the teachers of the public schools of the district, * * * but. nothing herein shall be construed as preventing two or more districts uniting and appointing the same person as superintendent * #

That part of this section was never amended. It was carried into the General Code as Section 7705, and it was repealed in February, 1934, in 104 Ohio Laws, 145, upon the enactment of the first law providing for county supervision of schools. Since that time there has been no law authorizing the boards of education of two or more districts to unite their districts for supervision purposes, nor has there been any law authorizing two or more boards of education to employ the same person as a school superintendent for their districts.

In this first supervision act is found Section 4740 G. C., in 104 Ohio Laws on page 141. That part of said section which is of interest in this case is as follows:

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-board-of-education-v-thompson-ohctcomplathens-1925.