Tucker v. State ex rel. Sessions
Tucker v. State ex rel. Sessions
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is not free from difficulty, because of the clause in section 4527, Code 1906, that “existing trustees shall remain in office unless selected under the general law;” but, taking all the sections referred to together (sections 4000, 4007, of the code of 1892, and sections 3, 7, 4526, 4527, of the code of 1906), it seems to us that the most rational construction to put upon them all, in ascertaining the legislative intent, is that section 4526 and section 4527 of the code of 1906 are prospective in their operation. It does not seem to have been the legislative intent, in the use of the phrase referred to in section 4527, to give it the drastic effect of retroactively removing trustees who were competent to serve at the time of their appointment under the previous code.
It follows that the judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- William F. Tucker v. State ex rel. James M. Sessions
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Code 1906, § 4526, like Code 1892, § 4007, providing that the conditions of eligibility imposed on school trustees under the general law shall apply to trustees of separate school districts, and that they shall be subject to the same penalties and to removal from office by the municipal board for neglect of duty, but containing the additional provision that no person who is a trustee of a private sectarian school in the same separate school district shall be eligible, and Code 1906, § 4527, like Code 1892, § 4008, providing the terms of school trustees, and declaring that existing trustees of separate school districts shall remain in office according to the terms of their appointment or designation, unless selected under the general law, the provisions of the code of 1906 are not retroactive so as to cause the removal of trustees of separate school districts selected under the general law before said code went into effect, and who were then competent to serve.