Opinion

Hughes v. Outlaw

  • 197 Ala. 452
  • 73 So. 16
  • 1916 Ala. LEXIS 96
Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Filed
Nov 16, 1916
Status
Published
Author
Sayre
On the bench
Anderson, Gardner, McClellan, Sayre
Cited by
11 cases
Authority
More cited than 85.1%

The opinion

SAYRE, J.

Proceeding for mandamus to compel appellant, a public school teacher, to receive the children of appellees as pupils without a charge for tuition levied by the trustees of the school.

The substantive right of appellees has been several times declared by this court in accordance with the determination of the circuit court in this case. — Bryant v. Whisenant, 167 Ala. 325 , 52 South. 525 ; Roberson v. Oliver, 189 Ala. 82 , 66 South. 645 ; Williams v. Smith, 192 Ala. 428 , 68 South. 323 ; Ryan v. Sawyer, 195 Ala. 69 , 70 South. 652 .

(1) All the petitioners on the amended petition were asserting the same right; i. e., they were seeking, in effect, to have annulled the regulation in virtue of which respondent denied their children admission to the school except upon condition that they pay a fee to supplement the teacher’s salary. The state has an interest in the education of its children, and each and every one of the petitioners on the amended petition had a like special and peculiar interest in having the regulation set aside and annulled. In these circumstances there was no tenable objection to the joinder of petitioners in the amended petition. — 26 Cyc. 401, 402, and cases cited. Their facts considered, the adjudications cited by appellant on this point are easily distinguishable from the case in hand.

(2) It is of no consequence, so far as this case is concerned, whether Teacher Hughes, in demanding the fee in dispute and in excluding the children of petitioners for non-payment was acting by authority of the board of education of Houston county or the local board of Cottonwood. He was conducting one of the public schools of the state. His right to do so was recognized by appellees when they filed the petition. The charge and regulation complained of was void in any case. His right to conduct the school, admitted all around, it was his duty to conduct it according to the law and the statutes under which he pretended to act, and the performance of that duty might be enforced without the embarrassment of any question as to whether the one board or the other had the right to control the school.

' Judgment awarding mandamus affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and McClellan and Gardner, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.