Monke v. Iowa School District No. 3

North Dakota Supreme Court

Monke v. Iowa School District No. 3

215 N.W. 284, 55 N.D. 809, 1927 N.D. LEXIS 163

DecidedAugust 16, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 215 N.W. 284 (Monke v. Iowa School District No. 3) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Monke v. Iowa School District No. 3, 215 N.W. 284, 55 N.D. 809, 1927 N.D. LEXIS 163 (N.D. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action is brought by the parent of a school child to recover transportation under the Compulsory Attendance Statute as it was amended in 1917. Sess. Laws 1917, chap. 206. In the trial court the plaintiff had judgment for an amount calculated upon the basis of the number of days the child was actually transported by the parent in the school years 1923-1924, 1924-1925, 1925-1926 at the rate of 35 cents per day, as fixed by the school board. From this judgment the plaintiff has appealed and assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to enter judgment based upon the number of days the child attended school, rather than the number of days the plaintiff furnished transportation. The judgment is clearly right. The statute contains no language indicative of a legislative purpose to compensate a parent for allowing his child to walk to school. The only obligation of a school board is to furnish transportation or, if such be not furnished, “to pay for transportation” or, if acceptable to the family, furnish the equivalent in lodging. The statute cannot, in our opinion, reasonably be construed to offer a reward for attendance, nor to pay compensation for the effort expended by a child in walking to school.

The judgment is affirmed.

Birdzell, Ch. J., and Nuessle, Christianson, Burke, and Burr, J.J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This action is brought by the parent of a school child to recover transportation under the Compulsory Attendance Statute as it was amended in 1917. Sess. Laws 1917, chap. 206. In the trial court the plaintiff had judgment for an amount calculated upon the basis of the number of days the child was actually transported by the parent in the school years 1923-1924, 1924-1925, 1925-1926 at the rate of 35 cents per day, as fixed by the school board. From this judgment the plaintiff has appealed and assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to enter judgment based upon the number of days the child attended school, rather than the number of days the plaintiff furnished transportation. The judgment is clearly right. The statute contains no language indicative of a legislative purpose to compensate a parent for allowing his child to walk to school. The only obligation of a school board is to furnish transportation or, if such be not furnished, “to pay for transportation” or, if acceptable to the family, furnish the equivalent in lodging. The statute cannot, in our opinion, reasonably be construed to offer a reward for attendance, nor to pay compensation for the effort expended by a child in walking to school.

The judgment is affirmed.

Birdzell, Ch. J., and Nuessle, Christianson, Burke, and Burr, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.W. 284, 55 N.D. 809, 1927 N.D. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monke-v-iowa-school-district-no-3-nd-1927.