the question depends largely on the constitutional or statutory provisions in force in the particular jurisdiction, it is difficult to formulate any general rules. Generally speaking this is a matter for legislative control unless specifically governed by the constitution, or by the law in force prior to the adoption of the constitution. The common law of England permitted a woman to fill any local office of an administrative character, and this would include the office of school director and subordinate school offices. Consequently in those states which have adopted the common law there is no incapacity imposed on women unless it expressly appears in the state constitution or statutes. In many states, however, office holding is limited to qualified electors. In such jurisdictions the question of the eligibility of women to school offices depends on the constitutional or statutory stipulations as to suffrage, and a change in the law letting women into the suffrage automatically makes them eligible for school offices restricted to qualified electors.10 It has been held that a statute providing that a contest of an election can be made only by an elector is impliedly repealed by a statute making women eligible to school offices. In such case a woman can bring a contest even though she is not a qualified elector.11 18. Removal.-Courts of equity will not interfere, by injunction, to determine questions concerning the appointment or election of public officers, or their title to office, such questions being of a purely legal nature, and cognizable only by courts of law.12 Where school officers are elected for a fixed term they cannot be removed without notice and a hearing on the charge or charges preferred against them, and a statute providing for their removal without such notice and hearing is contrary to the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.18 The failure of a school director to accept his office in writing as required by statute will not cause the office to be vacant if he actually enters on and performs his dutics. The object of such a statute is to apprise the public that the person elected intends to discharge the duties of the office, and this is fully accomplished by his actually discharging those duties. 14 On the detachment of the territory within which a school district officer resides from the school 9. See PUBLIC OFFICERS, vol. 22, 358. See also ELECTIONS, vol. 9, pp. pp. 406-408. 10. Note: 38 L.R.A. 212. 11. Brown v. McCollum, 76 Ia. 479, 41 N. W. 197, 14 A. S. R. 228. 987, 1152; PUBLIC OFFICERS, vol. 22, p. 454; Quo WARRANTO, vol. 22, p. 681. 13. Coleman v. Glenn, 103 Ga. 458, 30 S. E. 297, 68 A. S. R. 108. 12. Coleman v. Glenn, 103 Ga. 458, 30 S. E. 297, 68 A. S. R. 108; 14. Frans v. Young, 30 Neb. 360, School Dist. No. 116 v. Wolf, 78 Kan. 46 N. W. 528, 27 A. S. R. 412. 805, 98 Pac. 237, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) district of which he is an officer, his office immediately becomes vacant.15 19. Incompatible Offices.-A school director will not be permitted to hold another incompatible office, 16 but the fact that a man already holds an office, the duties of which in no wise conflict with the duties of a school director, will not render him ineligible for the latter office.17 Incompatibility between offices is an inconsistency between the functions thereof, as where one is subordinate to the other, or where a contrariety and antagonism would result in the attempt by one person faithfully and impartially to discharge the duties of both.18 In such case it has been held that a court has no power to remove a school director, but that the director by taking an incompatible office merely loses the right to continue to hold when a person with better title thereto presents himself. The remedy is by mandamus to compel the holding of an election to fill the vacancy.19 There is no rule of law which prohibits a man's becoming a candidate or being voted for at the same election for two incompatible offices; but, undoubtedly, if he should be elected to both, he would be incapable of discharging the duties of both offices, and would be compelled to make a choice as to which he would accept.20 20. Holding Over.-Normally an elective school officer holds office. until a successor is properly chosen to take over the office, in other words, until his successor is duly elected and qualifies. So if a successor is elected who is ineligible for the office, the previous incumbent holds over. This is true even though the term is fixed by the state constitution as of a certain duration, which has expired, for it will not be presumed that the framers of the constitution contemplated handicapping the cause of education by an interregnum in such case. If, however, the incumbent voluntarily surrenders the office to his ineligible successor, his rights to the office will terminate; but this rule does not apply when the surrender is made under a wrongful decree of court.1 IV. ADMINISTRATION 21. General Powers of Directors.-The law commits the government and conduct of the schools, in general, to the discretion of the 15. School Dist. No. 116 v. Wolf, 78 Kan. 805, 98 Pac. 237, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 358. 16. State v. Bus, 135 Mo. 325, 36 S. W. 636, 33 L R.A. 616; Haymaker v. State, 22 N. M. 400, 163 Pac. 248, L.R.A.1917D 210. 17. State v. Bus, 135 Mo. 325, 36 S. W. 636, 33 L.R.A. 616. 18. See PUBLIC OFFICERS, Vol. 22, p. 412 et seq. 19. Haymaker v. State, 22 N. M. 400, 163 Pac. 248, L.R.A.1917D 210. 20. Misch v. Russel, 136 III. 22, 26 N. E. 528, 12 L.R.A. 125. 1. Jenness v. Clark, 21 N. D. 150, 129 N. W. 357, Ann. Cas. 1913B 675. And see generally, PUBLIO OFFICERS, vol. 22, p. 554. board of education of the district, and places it beyond that of the patrons. Let the results be good or bad, there is no remedy, so long as the board acts within the limits of its legal power and authority. If it employs such teachers as the law authorizes it to employ, the patrons cannot interfere by injunction or otherwise, merely because . it might have found others more competent or satisfactory. The same rule applies to all other things left to its discretion. On the other hand, a school board trespassing the bounds of its legal authority, and in so doing injuriously affecting the interests of a citizen, may be restrained by injunction at his instance. 22. Regulations of School Boards.—In discharging the duties imposed on them by statute, school directors have the power to make rules and regulations pertaining to the schools and pupils. In some cases this power is expressly conferred by statute. These rules are administrative provisions, the right to enact which for the purposes of its existence is inherent in every corporation. They are analogous to by-laws and ordinances, and are tested by the same general principles. There is no necessity that all the rules, orders and regulations for the discipline, government and management of the schools shall be made a matter of record by the school board, or that every act, order or direction affecting the conduct of such schools shall be authorized or confirmed by a formal vote. It is recognized that no system of rules however carefully prepared can provide for every emergency, or meet every requirement. In consequence, much must necessarily be left to the individual members of the school boards, and to the superintendents of and the teachers in the several schools. 2. Spedden v. Board of Education, 74 W. Va. 181, 81 S. E. 724, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 163. L.R.A. (N.S.) 730. Note: Ann. Cas. 1918A 400. 4. Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66 Mo. 286, 27 Am. Rep. 343; McCortle v. Bates, 29 Ohio St. 419, 23 Am. Rep. 758. 5. Hertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472, 11 N. E. 605, 14 N. E. 68, 60 Am. Rep. 709. 6. Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472, 11 N. E. 605, 14 N. E. 68, 60 Am. Rep. 709; State v. School Dist. No. 1 Dist. Board, 135 Wis. 619, 116 N. W. 232, 128 A. S. R. 1050, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 730. 3. Trustees of Schools v. People, 87 Ill. 303, 29 Am. Rep. 55; McCormick v. Burt, 95 Ill. 263, 35 Am. Rep. 163; State v. Webber, 108 Ind. 31, 8 N. E. 708, 58 Am. Rep. 30; Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472, 11 N. E. 605, 14 N. E. 68, 60 Am. Rep. 709; Board of Education v. Booth, 110 Ky. 53, 62 S. W. 872, 53 L.R.A. 787; Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66 Mo. 286, 27 Am. Rep. 343; King v. Jefferson City School Board, 71 Mo. 628, 36 Note: Ann. Cas. 1918A 402. Am. Rep. 499; McCortle v. Bates, 29 7. Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. Ohio St. 419, 23 Am. Rep. 758; 472, 11 N. E. 605, 14 N. E. 68, 60 Ferriter v. Tyler, 48 Vt. 444, 21 Am. Am. Rep. 709; Guernsey v. Pitkin, Rep. 133; Morrow v. Wood, 35 Wis. 32 Vt. 224, 76 Am. Dec. 171; State 59, 17 Am. Rep. 471; State v. School v. School Dist. No. 1 Dist. Board, 135 Dist. No. 1 Dist. Board, 135 Wis. 619, Wis. 619, 116 N. W. 232, 128 A. S. R. 116 N. W. 232, 128 A. S. R. 1050, 16 1050, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 730. It follows that any reasonable rule adopted by a superintendent, or a teacher merely, not inconsistent with some statute or some other rule prescribed by higher authority, is binding on the pupils.8 23. Limitations on Power to Make Regulations.-All rules and regulations must be suitably adapted to the purposes of the existence of the board, and cannot be either inconsistent with the law,10 nor unreasonable or oppressive.11 A school regulation must be not only reasonable in itself, but its enforcement must also be reasonable in the light of existing circumstances.12 The power to adopt rules and regulations is not limited to those concerning the conduct of the pupils in school hours, but may, within proper limitations, extend to their conduct in nonschool hours as well.18 But the power of school authorities to make regulations controlling the child at home extends only to matters which would per se have a direct and pernicious effect on the moral tone of the school, or have a tendency to subvert and destroy the proper administration of school affairs.14 So it has been held that a regulation that pupils shall spend certain hours of the evening in study at home is beyond the power of a school board. 15 24. Control by Courts.--The courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by school directors in matters confided by law to their judgment, unless there is a clear abuse of the discretion, or a 8. Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472, 11 N. E. 605, 14 N. E. 68, 60 Am. Rep. 709; State v. Vanderbilt, 116 Ind. 11, 18 N. E. 266, 9 A. S. R. 820; Guernsey v. Pitkin, 32 Vt. 224, 76 Am. Dec. 171. 9. Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472, 11 N. E. 605, 14 N. E. 68, 60 Am. Rep. 709; King v. Jefferson City School Board, 71 Mo. 628, 36 Am. Rep. 499; State v. Board of Education, 63 Wis. 234, 23 N. W. 102, 53 Am. Rep. 282. 10. Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472, 11 N. E. 605, 14 N. E. 68, 60 Am. Rep. 709; Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66 Mo. 286, 27 Am. Rep. 343. Note: Ann. Cas. 1918A 402. grass, 66 Mo. 286, 27 Am. Rep. 343; King v. Jefferson City School Board, 71 Mo. 628, 36 Am. Rep. 499; Guernsey v. Pitkin, 32 Vt. 224, 76 Am. Dec. 171; Wayland v. Hughes, 43 Wash. 441, 86 Pac. 642, 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 352 and note; Morrow v. Wood, 35 Wis. 59, 17 Am. Rep. 471; State v. Board of Education, 63 Wis. 234, 23 N. W. 102, 53 Am. Rep. 282. Notes: 6 Ann. Cas. 998; 13 Ann. Cas. 333; Ann. Cas. 1918A 402. 12. Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472, 11 N. E. 605, 14 N. E. 68, 60 Am. Rep. 709. 13. State v. Board of School Dist. No. 1, 135 Wis. 619, 116 N. W. 232, 128 A. S. R. 1050, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 730. 14. Hobbs v. Germany, 94 Miss. 469, 49 So. 515, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 983; Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66 Mo. 286, 27 Am. Rep. 343; State v. School Dist. No. 1 Dist. Board, 135 Wis. 619, 116 N. W. 232, 128 A. S. R. 1050, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 730. 11. Trustees of Schools v. People, 87 Ill. 303, 29 Am. Rep. 55; State v. Webber, 108 Ind. 31, 8 N. E. 708, 58 Am. Rep. 30; Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472, 11 N. E. 605, 14 N. E. 68, 60 Am. Rep. 709; State v. Vanderbilt, 116 Ind. 11, 18 N. E. 266, 9 A. S. R. 820; Covington Board of Education v. Booth, 110 Ky. 807, 62 S. W. 15. Hobbs v. Germany, 94 Miss. 872, 53 L.R.A. 787; Dritt v. Snod- 469, 49 So. 515, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 983. violation of law.16 So the courts are usually disinclined to interfere with regulations adopted by school boards, 17 and they will not consider whether the regulations are wise or expedient,18 but merely whether they are a reasonable exercise of the power and discretion of the board.19 Acting reasonably within the powers conferred, it is the province of the board of education to determine what things are detrimental to the successful management, good order, and discipline of the schools and the rules required to produce these conditions.20 The presumption is always in favor of the reasonableness and propriety of a rule or regulation duly made. The reasonableness of regulations is a question of law for the courts. 25. Regularity of Proceedings.-It is an elementary principle that when several persons are authorized to do an act of a public nature, which requires deliberation, they all should be convened, because the advice and opinions of all may be useful, though all do not unite in opinion. Therefore matters requiring the action of a school board must be considered at a meeting properly held. An informal action 16. Hysong v. Gallitzian School District, 164 Pa. St. 629, 30 Atl. 482, 44 A. S. R. 632, 26 L.R.A. 203. 17. McCormick v. Burt, 95 Ill. 263, 35 Am. Rep. 163; Wilson v. Board of Education, 233 Ill. 464, 84 N. E. 697, 13 Ann. Cas. 330 and note, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1136; State v. Webber, 108 Ind. 31, 8 N. E. 708, 58 Am. Rep. 30; Kinzer v. Marion Independent School Dist., 129 Ia. 441, 105 N. W. 686, 6 Ann. Cas. 996, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 496; Covington Board of Education v. Booth, 110 Ky. 807, 62 S. W. 872, 53 L.R.A. 787; Hobbs v. Germany, 94 Miss. 469, 49 So. 515, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 983; O'Connor v. Hendrick, 184 N. Y. 421, 77 N. E. 612, 6 Ann. Cas. 432, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 402; Wayland v. Hughes, 43 Wash. 411, 86 Pac. 642, 7 LR.A. (N.S.) 352; State v. Board of Education, 63 Wis. 234, 23 N. W. 102, 53 Am. Rep. 282; State v. School Dist. No. 1 Dist. Board, 135 Wis. 619, 116 N. W. 232, 128 A. S. R. 1050, 16 L.R.A. (N S.) 730. 18. Wilson v. Board of Education, 233 Ill. 464, 84 N. E. 697, 13 Ann. Cas. 330, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1136. 19. Wilson v. Board of Education, 233 Ill. 464, 84 N. E. 697, 13 Ann. Cas. 330 and note, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1136; State v. Webber, 108 Ind. 31, 8 N. E. 708, 58 Am. Rep. 30; State v. Board of Education, 63 Wis. 234, 20. Wilson v. Board of Education, 233 Ill. 464, 84 N. E. 697, 13 Ann. Cas. 330 and note, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1156; Kinzer v. Marion Independent School Dist., 129 Ia. 441, 105 N. W. 686, 6 Ann. Cas. 996, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 496; Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66 Mo. 286, 27 Am. Rep. 343; Wayland v. Hughes, 43 Wash. 411, 86 Pac. 642, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 352; State v. School Dist. No. 1 Dist. Board, 135 Wis. 619, 116 N. W. 232, 128 A. S. R. 1050, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 730. 1. Kinzer v. Marion Independent School Dist., 129 Ia. 441, 105 N. W. 686, 6 Ann. Cas. 996, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 496. 2. Fertich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472, 11 N. E. 605, 14 N. E. 68, 60 Am. Rep. 709. Note: 6 Ann. Cas. 998. 3. Pottawatomie County School Dist. No. 39 v. Shelton, 26 Okla. 229, 109 Pac. 67, 138 A. S. R. 962. 4. McCortle v. Bates, 29 Ohio St. 419, 23 Am. Rep. 758; Pottawatomie County School Dist. No. 39 v. Shelton, 26 Okla. 229, 109 Pac. 67, 138 A. S. R. 962; Barton v. School Dist. No. 2, 77 Ore. 30, 150 Pac. 251, Ann. Cas. 1917A 252; Hunt v. School Dist. No. |