Old Forge borough was created and erected out of a portion of Old Forge township in Lackawanna county, leaving a portion of the original township less than a mile square outside the limits of the borough. The land remaining in the township, although valuable, was sparsely populated.

The school directors of the township filed their petition in the quarter sessions, asking for “ an equitable adjustment in accordance with the terms of the 11th section of the act of 1862 of all matters between the said school districts,” namely, pid Forge borough school district and Old Forge township school district. The petition was duly answered by the Old Forge borough district, a commissioner was appointed who reported the facts, including the value of the property contained in the new district, the indebtedness of the old district and all other facts pertinent to the inquiry.

After careful consideration and an opinion filed, the court awarded to the Old Forge township school district the sum of 13,026.64 as “ the proper amount to be paid by the borough of Old Forge school district to the township of Old Forge school district. ” The mode by which this result was reached was entirely fair and equitable and, after a careful examination of all the facts found by the commissioner and considered bj^ the .court, we can see no error in the result. The opinion of the court below fully covers all the points in the case and justifies the conclusion.

By the 1st section of the Act of May 8,1854, P. L. 617, “ every township, borough and city of this commonwealth or which shall be hereafter erected, shall constitute and be a school district, subject to the provisions of this act.” We know of and have been pointed to no act of assembly which limits the size or population of a township or which prescribes the size or population of a school district.

The maintenance of a school is practically the same, whethej.' *243the scholars be many or few, and we cannot say, nor could the court below arbitrarily say, that the school directors should provide for the children of school age within said district by sending them without the district to secure school facilities.

It is scarcely necessary to say that the title of the school directors to the office to which they seem to have been legally elected cannot be impeached in this collateral proceeding.

The opinion of the court below fairly covers all the questions involved and a further discussion of the subject would, therefore, seem to be superfluous. The decree of the court below is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.

concurring:

Under the laws relating to common schools, every township and borough is a school district, without respect to area, population or wealth. When a borough is formed of part of a township, it thereupon becomes a separate district, while the residue of the township remains a district as before. The assignment of error here asks us to hold that this residue, when reduced to the proportions appearing in the present case, ceases to be a district. Such a conclusion, however, is wholly without statutory warrant. The law has no provision by which the summary abolition of an old district results from the creation of a new one out of part of its territory, and provides no test for determining whether the old one is left capable of the necessary functions of a school district. The original district, however curtailed, retains its statutory character as a school district, with everything in law incident thereto.

In the case before us, a borough was duly formed of part of a township. Therepon, “ what had before been one become two separate and distinct school districts:” In re Abington School District, 84 Pa. 179. Later, the school property and indebtedness were apportioned between the two districts, in the manner provided by law. Upon the confirmation of this apportionment by the court below, August 11, 1902, the respective rights of the districts, as thereby defined, became fixed and vested, defeasible only by reversal on appeal. In my view of the law, the questions presented in the first and second specifications do not arise in the case ; and with these eliminated, there is no ground of exception to the confirmation of the commissioner’s report.

*244The effect of legislation, enacted since the argument of this case, on the subsequent status of these districts, we need not now consider. It cannot operate to convict the court below of error in deciding the questions before it in conformity with the existing law, and therefore cannot influence our disposition of the appeal. This court having no original jurisdiction in the premises can entertain no allegation of a right based oh such legislation, and no proceeding to establish and enforce such a right can be initiated here. Our sole function is to determine whether error appears in the record brought before us on appeal and as no error is thus shown, I concur in affirming the order made by the court below, dismissing the exceptions and confirming the report of the commissioner.