State Ex Rel. Meacham v. Preston

183 N.E. 777, 126 Ohio St. 1, 126 Ohio St. (N.S.) 1, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 194
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 14, 1932
Docket23132
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 183 N.E. 777 (State Ex Rel. Meacham v. Preston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Meacham v. Preston, 183 N.E. 777, 126 Ohio St. 1, 126 Ohio St. (N.S.) 1, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 194 (Ohio 1932).

Opinion

Stephenson, J.

This is an action in quo warranto brought by Cameron Meacham, prosecuting attorney of Scioto county, Ohio, on behalf of the state of Ohio, against George Preston, William Groh, John B. Lee, Fred Bihl and Fred Bobst. The section of the General Code involved in this case, Section 4736, reads as follows :

“The county board of education may create a school district from one or more school districts or parts thereof, and in so doing shall make an equitable division of the funds or indebtedness between the newly created district and any districts from which any portion of such newly created district is taken. Such action of the county board of education shall not take effect if a majority of the qualified electors residing in the territory affected by such order shall within thirty days from the time such action is taken file with the county board of education a written remonstrance against it. Members of the board of education of the newly created district shall be appointed by the county board of education and shall hold their office until the first election for members of a board of education held in such district after such appointment, at which said first election two members shall be elected for two years and three members shall be elected for four years, and thereafter their successors shall be elected in the same manner and for the term as is provided by Section 4712 of the General Code. The board so appointed by the county board of education shall organ *3 ize on the second Monday after their appointment.”

By way of petition relator states that respondents, George Preston and others, immediately prior to January 17, 1931, comprised the board of education of Wheelersburg rural school district of Scioto county, Ohio, but that on that date, January 17, 1931, the county board of education of Scioto county, Ohio, under and by authority of Section 4736 of the General Code of Ohio, passed a resolution creating the Wheelersburg rural school district of Scioto county, Ohio, composed of all the territory which theretofore constituted such district, together with other territory which had theretofore been a part of Yernon rural school district, all of said territory being situate within the Scioto county school district. This resolution was regularly recorded on the minutes of the county board of education. No remonstrance was filed against the creation of such district. An equitable division was made of the funds and indebtedness between the duly created Wheelersburg rural sehool district and the districts from which any portions of the new district were taken.

On or about January 17, 1931, the county board of education appointed J. N. Hudson, Hiram H. Barney, J. W. Crawford, Samuel Callihan and Pearl Nagel as members of the board of education of the new Wheelersburg rural school district. On January 26, 1931, this board met and organized, and now composes the duly appointed, qualified and acting board of education of the Wheelersburg rural school district.

Relator further states that the respondents herein, George Preston and others, are attempting to usurp and unlawfully hold and exercise office as members of the board of education in portions of the territory of the newly created district, and that they and each of them refuse to surrender and turn over the books, records, moneys and property of the old Wheelers-burg rural school district to the now duly qualified *4 and acting board of such district, and are assuming to do and perform the duties pertaining to the office of members of the board of education of such district, against the rights of the members of the regularly created and lawful board; that respondents are without warrant of law so to do, and, unless restrained by this court, will continue to perform the duties and act as members of said board, and will cause to be expended and misappropriated public funds, without authority of law.

Relator prays that respondents be required to answer by what warrant they claim to have, use, exercise and enjoy said offices; that they be adjudged not entitled thereto and judgment of ouster be pronounced against them; that J. N. Hudson, Hiram H. Barney, J. W. Crawford, Samuel Callihan and Pearl Nagel be adjudged entitled to said offices -and their franchises; and that respondents, George Preston and others, be enjoined generally during the pendency of these proceedings.

Respondents for their first defense admit practically all the allegations of relator’s petition, other-than that they are attempting to usurp and unlawfully hold and exercise the offices in question.

For a second defense respondents allege that all action taken by the county board of education in the way of redistricting and appointing officers was wholly void and illegal; that its action was arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and unreasonable, its purpose being to indirectly oust respondents without any regard to the propriety of the creation of such new rural school district.

For a third defense respondents state that on May 11, 1931, each and all of them, individually and as residents, taxpayers and electors of Wheelersburg rural school district, as it was and as it was attempted to be made by the purported resolution of the county board of education adopted January 17, 1931, and ás *5 members of tbe board of education of Wheelersburg rural school district, filed in the court of common pleas of Scioto county, Ohio, in case No. 24333 on the dockets and records of said court, their action in injunction against the county board of education of' Scioto county, Ohio, and the members thereof; also against Edward C. McCowen, the county superintendent of Scioto county, Ohio, school district, and against J. N. Hudson, Hiram H. Barney, J. W. Crawford, Samuel Callihan and Pearl Nagel, as purported members of the board of education of the purported newly created Wheelersburg rural school district. Each and all said defendants appeared in said court in said case No. 24333 and were represented therein by the relator herein, Cameron Meacham, in his capacity as prosecuting attorney of Scioto county, Ohio. Such proceedings were had in said cause that on the 6th day of July, 1931, prior to the filing of this action, said court made and entered upon its journal a finding wherein, among other things, it determined in substance the following:

(1) That the purported resolution of January 17, 1931, being the same resolution as is referred to in relator’s petition in the present cause, was wholly void, and that any steps and proceedings taken in pursuance or under purported authority thereof were wholly void, for that the county board of education and the members thereof, in acting to adopt the purported resolution, proceeded without the exercise of a sound discretion, or any discretion at all, illegally, in bad faith, and in a wholly arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and unreasonable manner, and further for that the purported resolution was passed without regard to the public interest and with the primary and principal object and purpose of ousting from office as members of the Wheelersburg rural board of education four of the respondents herein, John B. Lee, William Groh, George Preston and Fred Bobst, together *6 with one Ulysses S.

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

Related

City of New Port Richey v. State ex rel. O'Malley
145 So. 2d 903 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Wheeler School District No. 152 v. Hawley
137 P.2d 1010 (Washington Supreme Court, 1943)
Peninsular Telephone Co. v. Marks, Et Vir
198 So. 330 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Gigandet v. Brewer
15 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 N.E. 777, 126 Ohio St. 1, 126 Ohio St. (N.S.) 1, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-meacham-v-preston-ohio-1932.