{
  "id": 1558123,
  "name": "State v. Board of Directors of School District of Ashdown",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Board of Directors of School District",
  "decision_date": "1916-02-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "337",
  "last_page": "341",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 Ark. 337"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "27 Ark. 283",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ark. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893362
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/44/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ark. 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727226
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/26/0482-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 Am. Dec. 639",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ark. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1879310
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/31/0175-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ark. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1864506
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/25/0444-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Barb. 76",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Barb.",
      "case_ids": [
        5003265
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/barb/25/0076-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 Ark. 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1532245
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/116/0472-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ark. 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727226
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/26/0482-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 383,
    "char_count": 7820,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.743966337350095e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9503695003067747
    },
    "sha256": "4297d1328f37ff21065e498995a64bde48326b387418e295d640de3edec01315",
    "simhash": "1:9353ef7fb05fce37",
    "word_count": 1417
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:24:16.829991+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "State v. Board of Directors of School District of Ashdown."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\nThe questions presented by this appeal are whether or not mandamus will lie in a suit brought by the Attorney General and certain taxpayers of the Special School District of Ashdown to compel the county treasurer to demand and receive of the board of directors of such district, and to compel the board of directors and the bank to pay over, the sum of $30,000, money raised by the issuance of bonds in such district for the purpose of building a school house, $25,000 of which sum had been loaned to the First National Bank and $5,000 to H. G. Sanderson, a member of the board; and also whether or not an injunction should issue, on the facts above stated, restraining the directors and the bank from paying out the funds.\n(1) As early as Fitch v. McDiarmid, 26 Ark. 482 this court held that mandamus, with us, is not a writ of right, but is one within the judicial discretion of courts to issue or to withhold, and that a party, to be entitled to the writ must show that he has a clear legal right to the subject-matter, and that he has no other adequate remedy.\nUnder this doctrine, and the facts stated, appellants have mistaken their remedy, and mandamus will not lie.\nThe allegations of the petition are somewhat inconsistent and contradictory, for in the first part of the petition they allege that the board unlawfully had placed the money in the First National Bank of Ashdown, indicating that the board had deposited the money as a board of directors in the bank, and further on in the petition they allege that the board \u201chas unlawfully loaned to the First National Bank of Ashdown, Arkansas, the sum of $25,-000\u201d and has \u201cloaned to a member of said board, H. G. Sanderson, the \u00a1sum of $5,000.\u201d\n(2) Now, it is manifest that if the (board had the money on deposit in its name, then it had not loaned the same; and, on the other hand, if it had loaned the same to Sanderson and to the bank then the board did not have possession of the money, and could not be compelled by mandamus to. pay over funds which it did not have in its possession.\n(3) In the recent case of Black v. Special School District No. 2, 116 Ark. 472, we held that the directors of school districts, whether common or special, are not the custodians of the funds of their respective districts. Under this decision, if the petition, by proper allegations, had shown that the directors were in possession of the funds of the district, which they, upon demand, had refused to pay over to the county treasurer as the legal custodian of such funds, then mandamus might lie to compel them to do so. But, taking all of the allegations of the petition together, no such case is presented. On the contrary, the allegations of the petition show that the directors had loaned out the funds to the bank and to one of the members of the board of directors. It is clear, therefore, that appellants could not have compelled the directors to restore a fund that they had already loaned and over which they had no control.\n(4) Mandamus, as defined by our statute, \u201cis an order of a court of competent and original jurisdiction commanding an executive or ministerial officer to perform an act, or omit to do an act, the performance, or omission of which is enjoined by law,\u201d etc. Kirby\u2019s Dig., section 5156.\nIt is clear that if the money had been loaned to the bank and Sanderson, as stated in the petition, mandamus would not lie to compel them to pay the money into the county treasury. Even though the board had proceeded unlawfully to loan the money to the bank and Sanderson, mandamus would not lie to compel restitution on their part, and the writ could not be made effective as against the board of directors, because, as appears in the petition, they did not have possession of the funds.\nIn Fitch v. McDiarmid, supra, many authorities are cited, and among them the court quotes the following from. The People v. Thompson, 25 Barb. 76: \u201cThe invariable test by which the. right of a party, applying for a mandamus, is determined, is to inquire, first- whether he has a clear legal right; and if he has, then, secondly, whether there is any other adequate remedy to which he can resort to enforce his right; if there is, he can not have a mandamus. The writ only belongs to such as have legal rights to enforce and find themselves without an appropriate legal remedy. \u2019 \u2019\nUnder the facts stated in the case at \u00a1bar it suffices to say, if the money was unlawfully in the possession of Sanderson and the bank, under a contract of loan made with them by the board of directors, this money can be recovered, but mandamus is not the appropriate, remedy and is certainly not the only remedy, and the court did not err in so holding, and did not abuse its discretion in refusing the writ and in dismissing appellant\u2019s petition. The petition did not state any cause of action for injunction. The judgment is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wallace Davis, Attorney General, and A. D. Dulaney, for appellant.",
      "James 8. Steel and Seth C. Reynolds, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "State v. Board of Directors of School District of Ashdown.\nOpinion delivered February 21, 1916.\n1. Mandamus \u2014 nature op writ. \u2014 Mandamus Is not a writ or right, but Is within the judicial discretion of couirts to issue or to withhold, and a -party, to \u00a1be entitled to the writ must show that he has a clear legal right to the subject-matter, and that he has no other adequate remedy.\n2. School districts \u2014 funds\u2014loan of funds by board \u2014 mandamus.\u2014 Mandamus will not lie, in a suit brought by the Attorney General and certain tax payers in a special school district, to compel the county treasurer to demand and receive of the board of directors of the district, and to compel the board of directors, and a oertain bank to pay over a certain sum, raised by the issuance of bonds in the district for the purpose of erecting a school bouse where a portion of such sum had been loaned to the said bank, and the remainder had been loaned to one of the school directors.\n3. School districts \u2014 custodian of funds. \u2014 The directors of school districts, whether common or special, are not the custodians of the funds of the districts. Semble, if the petition showed that the directors Of a school district, were in possession of the funds of the district, which they, upon demand, had refused to pay over to the county treasurer as the legal custodian of such funds, then mandamus might lie to compel them to do iso.\n4. Mandamus \u2014 definition.\u2014Mandamus is an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, commanding an executive or ministerial officer to perform an act, or omit to do an act, the performance or omission of which is enjoined by law.\nAppeal from Little River Circuit Court; W. E. Arnold, Special Judge;\naffirmed.\nWallace Davis, Attorney General, and A. D. Dulaney, for appellant.\n1. The petition, as .amended, states a cause of action. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 <\u00a7. 1990-2-3; Ark. Law Rep., vol. 43, No. 9, p. 486.\n2. There was no defect of parties. The State ex. rel., etc., was a proper party, plaintiff, for the public interest was affected. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 5156; 25 Ark. 444; 31 Id. 264. The individual taxpayers were proper parties. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 6008. The treasurer refused to join in the suit and refused to demand tbe money. 31 Ark. 175; 49 Id. 103; 30 Cyc. 78. There was no misjoinder of defendants.\nJames 8. Steel and Seth C. Reynolds, for appellees.\n1. The petition as amended, if the facts stated were true did not state a cause for mandamus. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 \u00a7 5156, 7686-7699 ; 3 Burr. 1265; 8 East, 219; 81 Am. Dec. 639; Angel & Ames on Corp., \u00a7 698; 1 Burr 402; 26 Ark. 482.\n2. Mandamus only issues in eases of necessity to prevent injustice or greater injury. 26 Cyc. 146; 3 b.; 44 Ark. 284; 26 Cyc. 151 B; 27 Ark. 283; 26 Id. 510; 106 Id. 24 and 48.\n3. There is a defect of parties plaintiff. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 5999; 43 Ark. L. Rep. 486; '25 Ark. 444. Also a misjoinder of parties defendant. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 5156."
  },
  "file_name": "0337-01",
  "first_page_order": 361,
  "last_page_order": 365
}