People ex rel. Biddison v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District

163 Ill. App. 529, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 485
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedOctober 14, 1911
StatusPublished

This text of 163 Ill. App. 529 (People ex rel. Biddison v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Biddison v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District, 163 Ill. App. 529, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 485 (Ill. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Philbrick

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon leave of the court granted, the State’s Attorney of Edgar County 'filed an information, upon the relation of C. T. Biddison, in the nature of a quo warranto, setting forth that the defendant, Board of Education of the Paris Union School District, was unlawfully usurping and exercising the powers of school directors over the north half of the southwest quarter and the north half of the southeast quarter of section twelve, township thirteen, north, range twelve, west of the second P. M. To this information defendants pleaded the organization of the Paris Union School District by the special act of the legislature passed and in force April 15, 1869, that by virtue of that act the district was organized out of certain territory, described therein, which included parts of school townships number thirteen and fourteen, north, range twelve, west of the second P. M. and parts of school townships numbered thirteen and fourteen, north, range eleven, west of the second P. M., and that by virtue of said act the Board of Education was given full and complete authority over the schools of said district, and that in addition to giving them powers of a board of education, as conferred by the statute relating to public schools, they were clothed with and empowered to perform all of the acts of school trustees over the territory contained in said district, and that the rights and powers of the school trustees of the various townships from which the territory was respectively taken, were deprived of exercising any power as school trustees over said territory; that a petition was filed by two-thirds of the legal voters of the territory comprising the north half of the southwest quarter and the north half of the southeast quarter of said section twelve, town thirteen, north, range twelve, west of the second P. M.; that said petition was filed with defendants, as trustees of schools, requesting the annexation of that territory to the Paris Union School District, and also with the school trustees of township thirteen, north, range twelve, from which said territory was proposed to he taken, and that defendants at their regular meeting on the sixth of April, 1908, acting as school trustees over said territory, granted the prayer of said petition, and that the prayer of said petition was also granted by the trustees of schools of township thirteen, north, range twelve, at their regular meeting, held in said township thirteen, north, range -twelve, on the sixth day of April, 1908. A demurrer was filed to this plea by the people, the demurrer was overruled by the court, and relator electing to stand by his demurrer, judgment was rendered thereon, the writ quashed and the information dismissed at the costs of the relator.

As a cause for reversal of the judgment appellant insists that the special act which created the Paris Union School District also created a school township co-extensive with the territory of the district, also that the special act does not authorize or empower the change of the boundaries of the district by the addition of territory thereto, also that if this special act only created a school district, that district is in parts of four separate school townships and before the district could be enlarged it was necessary to file a petition with the trustees of schools of each of these four townships, and that it was necessary that the petition be acted upon separately by the trustees of each of these four townships.

If the special act created a school district, and conferred upon the Board of Education of the school district not only the powers of a board of education but also the additional powers of school trustees over the .territory of which this district is composed, then the boundaries of the district may be enlarged if authority to enlarge its boundaries is given to the proper officers by the special act under which the district was created.

The title of the special act creating this district is as follows: “An Act to form and establish the Paris Union School District.”

Section 1 provides: “That all that district of country embraced within the following boundaries, to-wit: (Here follows a description of the land embraced therein) is ordered to be made and constituted a permanent school district by the name of the Paris Union School District, and no territory shall be taken therefrom except by act of the legislature.”

Section 2 names the members of the first board of education and gives them the exclusive management and control of the district, creating them a body corporate and politic, with all of the authority with which a corporation of that character is clothed, gives them all of the authority and powers of a hoard of education under the general school laws.

Section 6 provides that all of the school lands, school funds and property belonging to the various townships out of which this district was created, held and owned for school purposes, should be divided between the Paris Union School District and the portions of the townships not contained in said district, in proportion to the number of persons under twenty-one years of age, etc.

Section 10 is as follows:

“The said board, in addition to the powers now given by law to school directors and the powers herein granted, shall possess all the powers and privileges of trustees of townships, for school purposes, and shall be recognized and regarded by the county superintendent of schools, county clerk and all other officers of this state as possessing all the powers, privileges and rights of trustees of congressional townships of this state, and are hereby required to perform for said district all the duties of such trustees as well as those of directors, not inconsistent with this act. ’ ’

This special act does not attempt in any manner to enumerate or define any specific powers conferred upon the Board of Education, either as a board of education or as trustees of schools, but section 2 provides that as a board of education they shall have all the powers then possessed by boards of education under the school laws of this state. Section 10 provides that in addition to the powers given by the general laws to school directors and in addition to the powers granted by this act, they shall possess all the powers of trustees of townships for school purposes. This section does not attempt to define what these powers or privileges shall be, but also leaves the general school law to determine them. Section 10, therefore, clothed the Board of Education of this district with all the powers and authority of school trustees of the state, except the power to diminish the district, which power they were deprived of by section 1 of this special act.

Delator contends that this Board of Education had no powers except those given to it by the special act, under the rule that municipal corporations have no powers except those conferred by the act under which they are created. While it must be conceded that a municipal corporation has no power and can perform no acts not authorized by the legislature, this special act does not attempt to specifically name or define any powers conferred on this Board, either as a board of education or as school trustees, but leaves those powers to be determined by the general school law of the state.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 Ill. App. 529, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-biddison-v-board-of-education-of-paris-union-school-illappct-1911.