Steffey v. Sandifer

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Schools akd school distbicts—when declaration in action for wrongful exclusion from nearest school is sufficient. Where, in an action by a minor against the directors of a school district and teacher to recover damages for excluding him from a certain school, the declaration charged that the defendants had denied plaintiff the right of an education in a certain school in said district and that such denial “was from the wilful and malicious and unlawful conduct to (plaintiff) by the said defendants so that (he) could be denied the use of the said school and instruction of the same,” held, that the declaration contained a sufficient charge of wilfulness and maliciousness on the part of the defendants, and the court properly overruled a demurrer thereto.</p> <p>2. Appeal akd error, § 783*—when dill of exceptions is insufficient. A bill of exceptions which fails to state that it contains all of the evidence in the case, and the certificate of the trial judge thereto containing no statement with reference to the matter, is insufficient to permit a review of the facts and the same is not cured by statements of counsel appearing in different portions of the bill of exceptions, or by a certificate by the official court reporter included in the record after the signature of the trial judge, as such certificate is no part of such bill.</p> <p>3. Appeal and error, § 1303*^when presumed that verdict of jury is correct on facts. There being no sufficient bill of exceptions in the record, it must be assumed that the verdict of the jury was correct upon the facts.</p> <p>4. Schools and school districts, § 175*—when directors are not justified in excluding pupil from nearest school. Where school directors drew an imaginary line between two schoolhouses in their district, and the parent of a pupil in one of sai'd schools thereafter removed his residence to within a short distance of that school and within the territory allotted to it, his former residence being within the territory allotted by the directors to the other school, and the proofs in an action against said directors and the teacher for refusing to continue instruction to such pupil in said former school did not disclose any crowded condition of that school or any particular reason why it would be for the best interests of the district that said pupil should be removed to the other and distant school, or that said pupil had been guilty of any misconduct, held, that the directors were not justified in excluding the pupil from the school nearest him.</p>