Taylor v. Board of Trustees
Taylor v. Board of Trustees
Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Affirming.
Appellant, C. W. Taylor, suing as a citizen, taxpayer and freeholder, of the Greenville graded common school
The petition states that prior to January 2, 1923, school buildings in said district had become -so out of repair and inadequate that it was necessary for the board of -education in order to provide suitable- building apparatus and equipment for the-, needs, of the school children in said district, to provide means by which a new and suitable building for their use could be constructed, and that in order to provide the necessary buildings and rooms for said purposes the said board caused to be entered an -order calling an.-election to be held in said city, at which election the question of whether -o-r not the sai-d district would issue and 'sell bonds, in the sum of $24,0-00.00, as provided by section 4477, Acts' of 1922, which will be found on page 47 of the Acts of 1922. It is further .averred in the petition that the election was duly called and held and' that 428 persons qualified to vote in said election participated in said election by casting their ballot, of which number 386 voted in favor of the bond issue and .only 42 of said persons- voting at said election voted against said bond issue; that the results of -said -election were held and properly certified as required by statute, and a copy of said certificate furnished to M. C. Hughes, -superintendent of public schools for Muhlenberg county; that the school board duly assembled at the office of the board in Greenville January 15, 1923, for the purpose of and did canvas the returns of said election, and thereupon issued a certificate reciting and declaring the result as aforesaid; and the board thereupon ordered bonds for the district to issue in the sum of $20,000.00 to be used for furnishing s-cho-ol buildings and apparatus; that the taxable property of said district owned by white persons amounts to over $1,2-30,000.00, and that the board -of education had theretofore levied for the purpose -of maintaining and operating the said school in the said district the- sum of $1.25 upon each
It is admitted by appellant that the election was regularly called and held and that more than two-thirds of the voters voting at said election voted in favor of the said bond issue. The act of 1922, section 4476, found on page 45 of the said act, provides as follows:
“Boards of trustees of graded common'school districts are hereby authorized and empowered to levy each year not later than the last Saturday in June, a tax for establishing, maintaining and operating the common schools of thieir respective districts, at a rate not less than'twenty-five (25c) cents, and not to exceed one dollar and twenty-five ($1.25) cents upon each one hundred ($100.00) dollars of taxable property within the district and owned by white person©; .and also, a poll tax on each white male inhabitant within the district over twenty-one (21) years of age, not exceeding two dollars1 ($2.00); and shall also levy a sufficient amount to provide for the payment of interest and for sinking fund purposes for the next fiscal year, and the tax accruing from so much of said levy as is made for the payment of interest and sinking fund purpose©.shall be by said board of trustees at once irrevocably .set 'aside and used for these purposes and not otherwise; and said interest and sinking fund provisions as above provided shall include the interest and the sinking fund for the entire outstanding bonded indebtedness of said board.” From this section it is apparent that the board of .education may not only levy $1.25 ad valorem on each $100.00 of taxable property of white persons living in the district for maintainance purposes but may also1 levy a poll tax of not exceeding two dollars ($2.00) on each male white person over twenty-one years of age, and also a .sufficient amount to provide for the payment of interest and for sinking fund purposes for the next fiscal year, which said last named fund shall be irrevocably set aside for the payment of interest and the formation of a sinking fund to take up bonds at maturity. It therefore appears that the board of .education did not exceed its authority in levying the twenty-five cents (25c) on each one hundred ($100.00) dollars of taxable property of white persons in the .district, to be used to pay interest on the bonds and to create -a sinking fund to take up the bonds at maturity.
It appearing that the election was properly called and hleld and the bond issue carried by more than two-thirds majority, and that a sinking fund is provided from which tbe interest on the bonds may be paid' as it accrues, and tbe said bonds, liquidated at maturity, there is no reason why tbe board of education may not issue tbe bonds as it was, about to do at the time of the institution of this action. Tbe trial court properly sustained tbe demurrer to tbe petition.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.