of the common law obtains, and that rule leaves the property where it is found, and the debt on the original debtor. A statute effecting such separation does not deprive the school district of its property 'without due process of law, for it holds such property merely as trustee for the state, and there is no contract relation between the district and the state. In a few jurisdictions, however, the rule obtains that in case of the alteration of the lines of a school district so that the school property is left within the limits of another district, the right to the property remains in the old district,5 on the ground that annexation of territory to a district merely gives it control over it and not title to the land. In some jurisdictions express statutory provision is made for the adjustment of property rights where the boundaries of a school district are altered. The provisions of these statutes vary greatly. Some statutes provide that a new district assuming the property of an old district shall assume its debts as well. In case of the abolition of the old district and the formation of new districts out of its territory the new districts are deemed the successors of the old and as such liable for all of its debts and entitled to all of its property." 11. Qualifications of Electors.-Usually the qualifications of electors are prescribed by the constitutions of the several states.10 Many state constitutions have expressly extended the suffrage to women in school matters,11 but under general provisions, questions of some difficulty at times arise. Constitutional provisions fixing the qualifications of School Dist. No. 82, 40 Minn. 13, 41 2. Pass School Dist. v. Hollywood City School Dist., 156 Cal. 416, 105 Pac. 122, 20 Ann. Cas. 87 and note, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 485 and note. 3. Atty.-Gen. v. Lowrey, 199 U. S. 233, 26 S. Ct. 27, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 167; Pass School Dist. v. Hollywood City School Dist., 156 Cal. 416, 105 Pac. 122, 20 Ann. Cas. 87, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 485. 4. Atty.-Gen. v. Lowrey, 199 U. S. 233, 26 S. Ct. 27, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 167. 5. Winona v. Winona County School Dist. No. 82, 40 Minn. 13, 41 N. W. 539, 12 A. S. R. 687, 3 L.R.A. 46. Notes: 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 487; 20 Aun. Cas. 89. 6. Winona v. Winona County School Dist. No. 82, 40 Minn. 13, 41 N. W. 539, 12 A. S. R. 687, 3 L.R.A. 46. 7. Atty.-Gen. v. Lowrey, 199 U. S. 233, 26 S. Ct. 27, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 167. Note: 20 Ann. Cas. 90. 8. Atty.-Gen. v. Lowrey, 199 U. S. 233, 26 S. Ct. 27, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 167; Coler v. Dwight School Tp., 3 N. D. 249. 55 N. W. 587, 28 L.R.A. 649. 9. District of Columbia v. Cluss, 103 U. S. 705, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 455; Winona v. Winona County School Dist. No. 82, 40 Minn. 13, 41 N. W. 539, 12 A. S. R. 687, 3 L.R.A. 46. 10. Oppegaard v. Renville County, 120 Minn. 443, 139 N. W. 949, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 936; Harris v. Burr, 32 Ore. 348, 52 Pac. 17, 39 L.R.A. 768. See also ELECTIONS, vol. 9, p. 1023 et seq. 11. Oppegaard v. Renville County, 120 Minn. 443, 139 N. W. 949, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 936. As to the recent extension of the right of suffrage to women on equal terms with men, see ELECTIONS, Vol. 9, pp. 1028-1029. electors at "all elections" or at "any election" apply only to the election of officers provided for by the constitution, and where the constitution does not provide for school officers but leaves the subject of schools to the legislature it is competent for the legislature to prescribe the qualifications of voters at school elections.1 This fact has frequently been taken advantage of by the legislature to give the vote to women in school matters, although they are not given the general franchise by the constitution.14 But where the constitution in general terms limits the suffrage for all offices to males, the legislature cannot enfranchise women in school matters, even though school offices are not constitutional, but rather legislative offices.15 In many constitutions school officers are not specifically named, but the question arises whether they are included under any general headings. The term which has come up most frequently for judicial determination in this connection is "town and county officers." It is generally held that these terms do not include officers of a district, but do include higher officers whose powers extend over several districts.16 12. Proceedings on Petition.-Many state constitutions provide for the filing of petitions in certain school matters by citizens, using the words "qualified voters," "legal voters" or some similar phraseology."7 In such cases the question has arisen as to whether women are to be included in determining what constitutes the fixed proportion required by the constitutions. In those states in which women have no right to vote at all, plainly they are not to be included, and similarly where the suffrage of women is restricted to school matters, it has been held that they are not included in such provisions, not being voters in the broad sense.18 Such provisions contemplate the signing of the petition by the voters in person and an attorney at law cannot sign for a number of persons whom he represents.19 III. SCHOOL OFFICERS 13. Source and Extent of Power.-The affairs of school districts are usually intrusted to officers generally known as "directors" or "trus 12. In re Gage, 141 N. Y. 112, 35 N. E. 1094, 25 L.R.A. 781; Harris v. Burr, 32 Ore. 348, 52 Pac. 17, 39 L.R.A. 768. Note: 7 Ann. Cas. 666. 16. In re Gage, 141 N. Y. 112, 35 N. E. 1094, 25 L.R.A. 781. 17. De Loach v. Newton, 134 Ga. 739, 68 S. E. 708, 20 Ann. Cas. 342; Oppegaard v. Renville County, 120 13. Harris v. Burr, 32 Ore. 348, 52 Minn. 443, 139 N. W. 949, 43 L.R.A. Pac. 17, 39 L.R.A. 768. Note: 7 Ann. Cas. 666. (N.S.) 936. 18. Oppegaard v. Renville County, 14. Harris v. Burr, 32 Ore. 348, 52 120 Minn. 443, 139 N. W. 949, 43 Pac. 17, 39 L.R.A. 768. Note: 7 Ann. Cas. 666. 15. Note: 7 Ann. Cas. 666. L.R.A. (N.S.) 936. 19. De Loach v. Newton, 134 Ga. 739, 68 S. E. 708, 20 Ann. Cas. 342, tees." The legislature in the fulness of its power may name these officers, or may designate the mode of their selection.20 There is no inherent right in the electors of a district to choose any or all of the school directors.1 In the absence of constitutional restrictions the legislature may provide that school directors shall be composed of any persons and chosen in any manner that it may prescribe. Such directors or trustees are only agents appointed to carry out the system. provided for. They have no powers except such as are conferred by legislative act, either expressly or by necessary implication, and doubtful claims of power are resolved against them. They have special powers, and cannot exceed them. Though they have a very wide discretion in matters intrusted to their care, school directors. and other school officers are the agents of the district.8 There is a distinction between the agents of a private corporation and the agents of a public corporation such as a school district. The directors of a school district can bind the district only by acts within the actual scope of their authority.10 14. Nature of Office.-School directors or trustees are an administrative body, charged with the duty of administering the law govern 20. State v. Hine, 59 Conn. 50, 21 Atl. 1024, 10 L.R.A. 83; State v. Freeman, 61 Kan. 90, 58 Pac. 959, 47 L.R.A. 67; Harris v. Burr, 32 Ore. 348, 52 Pac. 17, 39 L.R.A. 768; Minsinger v. Rau, 236 Pa. 327, 84 Atl. 902, Ann. Cas. 1913E 1324. 1. State v. Hine, 59 Conn. 50, 21 Atl. 1024, 10 L.R.A. 83. 2. State v. Hine, 59 Conn. 50, 21 Atl. 1024, 10 L.R.A. 83; State v. Freeman, 61 Kan. 90, 58 Pac. 959, 47 L.R.A. 67; Harris v. Burr, 32 Ore. 348, 52 Pac. 17, 39 L.R.A. 768. 3. Maddox v. Neal, 45 Ark. 121, 55 Am. Rep. 540; Hornung v. State, 116 Ind. 458, 19 N. E. 151, 2 L.R.A. 510. aker v. Board of Education, 42 W. Va. 170, 24 S. E. 544, 57 A. S. R. 847, 32 L.R.A. 413. 5. Board of Education v. Best, 51 Ohio St. 138, 39 N. E. 694, 27 L.R.A. 77. 6. Pasadena School Dist. v. Pasadena, 166 Cal. 7, 134 Pac. 985, Ann. Cas. 1915B 1039 and note, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 892; People v. Board of Education, 101 Ill. 308, 40 Am. Rep. 196; Mathews v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, 127 Mich. 530, 86 N. W. 1036, 54 L.R.A. 736. 7. Maddox v. Neal, 45 Ark. 121, 55 Am. Rep. 540; Cross v. Fisher, 132 Tenn. 31, 177 S. W. 43, Ann. Cas. 1916E 1092. 8. Andrews v. Estes, 11 Me. 267, 26 Am. Dec. 521; Board of Education v. Robinson, 81 Minn. 305, 84 N. W. 105, 83 A. S. R. 374; State v. Loechner, 65 Neb. 814, 91 N. W. 874, 59 L.R.A. 915. 4. Maddox v. Neal, 45 Ark. 121, 55 Am. Rep. 540; State v. Haworth, 122 Ind. 462, 23 N. E. 946, 7 L.R.A. 240; Bopp v. Clark, 165 Ia. 697, 147 N. W. 172, Ann. Cas. 1916E 417, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 493; Luchini v. Police Jury, 126 La. 972, 53 So. 68, 21 Ann. Cas. 59; Mathews v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, 127 Mich. 530, 86 N. W. 1036, 54 L.R.A. 736; Board of Education v. Best, 51 Ohio St. 138, 39 N. E. 694, 27 L.R.A. 77; Crawford v. Klamath County School Dist. No. 7, 68 Ore. 388, 137 Pac. 217, Ann. Cas. R. 374. 1915C 477, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 147; Hon 9. Monticello School Town v. Kendall, 72 Ind. 91, 37 Am. Rep. 139 and note; Andrews v. Estes, 11 Me. 267, 26 Am. Dec. 521. 10. Board of Education v. Robinson, 81 Minn. 305, 84 N. W. 105, 83 A. S. ing the public schools within their districts.11 It is their duty to administer the affairs of the corporation as directed by statute in the exercise of such powers and authority as are vested in them; 19 and, among other things, to build and keep in repair public school buildings. 18 Doubtless in many instances in the performance of their duties they may exercise a discretion or judgment quasi judicial in character, but they are not judicial officers within the meaning in which that term is generally used, nor are they executive officers, but they are "ministerial" officers and come within the terms of a criminal statute applying to such officers.14 They are public officers 15 and are generally held to come within the terms of a statute applying to "municipal officers," 16 though some cases hold that they are not municipal officers.17 They are not included in constitutional or statutory provisions as to "county officers." 18 15. De Facto Officers.-The acts of school officers de facto, so far as they affect third persons or the public, in the absence of fraud, are as valid as those of officers de jure.19 One who exercises the duties of an office under color of title is a de facto officer. 20 So it has been held that where two school boards are elected, both claiming to be officers de jure, and the one exercises the powers of office while the other does not, .all acts of the former as to third parties are valid, even though the latter is in reality the board de jure. A tax levied by 11. State v. Loechner, 65 Neb. 814, 91 N. W. 874, 59 L.R.A. 915. 19. De Loach v. Newton, 134 Ga. 739, 68 S. E. 708, 20 Ann. Cas. 342; 12. Maddox v. Neal, 45 Ark. 121, Howard v. Burke, 248 Ill. 224, 93 N. 55 Am. Rep. 540; Freel v. Crawfords- E. 775, 140 A. S. R. 159 and ville School City, 142 Ind. 27, 41 N. note; State v. Warrick County, 124 E. 312, 37 L.R.A. 301; Campana v. Ind. 554, 25 N. E. 10, 8 LR.A. Calderhead, 17 Mont. 548, 44 Pac. 83, 607; Williams v. Lunnenburg School 36 L.R.A. 277; State v. Loechner, 65 Neb. 814, 91 N. W. 874, 59 L.R.A. 915; Cross v. Fisher, 132 Tenn. 31, 177 S. W. 43, Ann. Čas. 1916E 1092. 13. Freel v. Crawfordsville School City, 142 Ind. 27, 41 N. E. 312, 37 L.R.A. 301; Cross v. Fisher, 132 Tenn. 31, 177 S. W. 43, Ann. Cas. 1916E 1092. 14. State v. Loechner, 65 Neb. 814, 91 N. W. 874, 59 L.R.A. 915. 15. Coleman v. Glenn, 103 Ga. 458, 30 S. E. 297, 68 A. S. R. 108; State v. Loechner, 65 Neb. 814, 91 N. W. 874, 59 L.R.A. 915. Note: 17 L.R.A. 247. 16. Note: 17 L.R.A. 247. 17. Frans v. Young, 30 Neb. 360, 46 N. W. 528, 27 A. S. R. 412. Dist. No. 1, 21 Pick. (Mass.), 75, 32 Am. Dec. 243; Reynolds v. Moore, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 35, 24 Am. Dec. 116; Coler v. Dwight School Tp., 3 N. D. 249, 55 N. W. 587, 28 L.R.A. 649; Hagner v. Heyberger, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 104, 42 Am. Dec. 220. As to de facto officers generally, see PUBLIC OFFICERS, vol. 22, pp. 601604. 20. See PUBLIC OFFICERS, vol. 22, pp. 588, 593. See also De Loach v. Newton, 134 Ga. 739, 68 S. E. 708, 20 Ann. Cas. 342; State v. Warrick County, 124 Ind. 554, 25 N. E. 10, 8 L.R.A. 607; Hagner v. Heyberger, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 104, 42 Am. Dec. 220. 1. Howard v. Burke, 248 Ill. 224, 18. State v. Freeman, 61 Kan. 90, 93 N. E. 775, 140 A. S. R. 159. 58 Pac. 959, 47 L.R.A. 67. authority of officers de facto is perfectly valid, even though there be officers de jure in existence. The title or acts of a de facto school officer cannot be attacked collaterally, but only in a direct proceeding brought for that purpose. The proper method of testing a school officer's right to his office is by quo warranto. 16. Eligibility of Officers in General.-Where certain qualifications are provided by statute for the holder of a school office there is some divergence of opinion as to whether the qualifications are to be judged as of the time of election or induction into office. The ques tion has arisen most frequently where the statute uses the word "eligible." The more general rule seems to be that they are to be judged as of the time when the candidate takes office and that a person disqualified at the time of his election may assume the office, provided the disqualification is removed before the term of office begins. But a number of cases construing provisions using the word "eligible" have held that the qualifications or disqualifications mentioned in connection therewith relate to the time of election, and that compliance with the provision between election and induction into office is not sufficient. An officer such as a superintendent of schools appointed by the school directors holding office at their pleasure and exercising no power except that which he derives from and through the directors is not an officer, but is an employee, and so does not come within a legal requirement that all officers shall be electors of the district.8 17. Eligibility of Women.-The question as to the eligibility of women to hold office as school directors, or as administrative officers in the educational system, has arisen with increasing frequency. As 2. Metz v. Anderson, 23 Ill. 463, 5. Metz v. Anderson, 23 Ill. 463, 76 76 Am. Dec. 704; Howard v. Burke, Am. Dec. 704; State v. Warrick 248 Ill. 224, 93 N. E. 775, 140 A. S. County, 124 Ind. 554, 25 N. E. 10, R. 159 and note; Williams v. Lunnen- 8 L.R.A. 607; Hagner v. Heyberger, burg School District No. 1, 21 Pick. 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 104, 42 Am. Dec. (Mass.) 75, 32 Am. Dec. 243; Rey- 220. nolds v. Moore, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 35, 24 Am. Dec. 116. 3. Howard v. Burke, 248 Ill. 224, 93 N. E. 775, 140 A. S. R. 159 and note. 6. Metz v. Anderson, 23 Ill. 463, 76 Am. Dec. 704; State v. Ladeen, 104 Minn. 252, 116 N. W. 486, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1058; Hagner v. Heyberger, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 104, 42 Am. Dec. 220. See generally, QUO WARRANTO, vol. 22, p. 661 et seq. 4. De Loach v. Newton, 134 Ga. 739, 68 S. E. 708, 20 Ann. Cas. 342; Metz v. Anderson, 23 Ill. 463, 76 Am. 7. Bradfield v. Avery, 16 Idaho 769, Dec. 704; State v. Warrick County, 102 Pac. 687, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1228 124 Ind. 554, 25 N. E. 10, 8 L.R.A. and note. See generally, ELECTIONS, 607; Williams v. Lunnenburg School vol. 9, p. 1124; PUBLIC OFFICERS, vol. Dist. No. 1, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 75, 32 Am. Dec. 243; Hagner v. Heyberger, 8. Baltimore v. Lyman, 92 Md. 591, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 104, 42 Am. Dec. 48 Atl. 145, 84 A. S. R. 524, 52 L.R.A. 220. See also PUBLIC OFFICERS, vol. 406. 22, p. 603. 22, pp. 402-403. |