{ "id": 1467056, "name": "White v. Jenkins", "name_abbreviation": "White v. Jenkins", "decision_date": "1948-03-22", "docket_number": "4-8488", "first_page": "119", "last_page": "121", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "213 Ark. 119" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "209 S.W.2d 457" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "242 S. W. 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 Ark. 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1361245 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/154/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 A. L. R. 1212", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 S. W. 538", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 Ark. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1355704 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/158/0247-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 Ark. 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1376973 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/167/0049-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 293, "char_count": 3920, "ocr_confidence": 0.477, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6604547163333915e-07, "percentile": 0.6941875761868742 }, "sha256": "978bcae052ca483ec0762b0867de5a80c893da2dd9adc09fb865e53cd79c86d1", "simhash": "1:5090dc4ac51e9b26", "word_count": 649 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:58:24.264428+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "White v. Jenkins." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Robins, J.\nAppellants, citizens and school patrons of Troy Special School District No. 12, of Ouachita county, brought this suit in the chancery court against appellees, directors of that district. In their complaint they asked that appellees be enjoined from using the bus of the district to transport the district\u2019s grade school children to the Stephens Special District; that they be enjoined from continuing to keep the Troy District white school closed; and that they be enjoined from sending to the Stephens School any pupils of the Troy District except those in high school grades.\nThe lower court dismissed appellants\u2019 complaint and they have' appealed.\nThe case was tried below on a stipulation which reflected the situation in this district. There were enumerated 35 white children and a \u201cconsiderably larger\u201d number of negro children. On September 10, 1917, the directors voted not to operate the white school during the year 1917-1918 and to transport the white children to the Stephens School. A contract was entered into with the Stephens District by which the latter district agreed to teach the high school students of the Troy District for $1,200. No charge was made by the Stephens District for the tuition of the grade school children. The County Board of Education authorized the arrangement between the two districts.\nThe budget statement attached to the stipulation showed the amount available, from all sources, for expenditure by the Troy School District for the school year 1947-1918 to be $7,095. This was to be expended as follows: Salaries of five negro teachers, $2,820; bus driver, tires, repairs, gas, oil, etc., $2,000; operating expense, $250; repairs on buildings, etc., $140; insurance on buildings, $140; debt service $545; tuition, under agreement with Stephens District, $1,200.\nAppellants concede that appellees had the power, under the provisions of \u00a7 11727, Pope\u2019s Digest, to make an agreement with the Stephens District for the schooling of the Troy District\u2019s high school students; and it is. not urged that the contract made was an unreasonable or improper one. It is admitted that, with the $1,200 being spent in this way, there would not be sufficient funds left to pay for operating the district\u2019s white grade school.\nAppellants do not ask that the expenditure of the $1,200 for tuition for high school students be enjoined. Therefore, if the court should order appellees to re-open the white grade school, such an order would require them to spend funds in excess of the district\u2019s annual receipts. This school directors are forbidden to do under the provisions of \u00a7 11535, Pope\u2019s Digest.\nAVhile the wisdom of appellees\u2019 decision, under which they solved the district\u2019s problem by closing the white school, keeping three negro schools open and paying out a total of $3,200 for transportation and tuition of the white children, might well be questioned, we do not find that appellees went beyond their statutory powers or violated any statutory duty in doing this.\nIt is well settled that courts may not intervene to control matters in the discretion of administrative bodies such as school boards, in the absence of a showing of an abuse of such discretion. Necessarily, some latitude in the exercise of this discretion must be given to these boards. They represent the people of the locality affected and naturally are closer to the problems to be solved than any court or other agency could be. 28 Am. Jur. 352, Connelly v. Earl Frazier Special School District, 167 Ark. 49, 266 S. AW 929; Pugsley v. Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247, 250 S. W. 538, 30 A. L. R. 1212; State v. Montgomery County Special School District No. 16, 154 Ark. 176, 242 S. W. 545.\nIt follows that the decree of the lower court was correct and is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Robins, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "L. B. Smead, for appellant.", "Gaughan, McClellan & Gaughan, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "White v. Jenkins.\n4-8488\n209 S. W. 2d 457\nOpinion delivered March 22, 1948.\nL. B. Smead, for appellant.\nGaughan, McClellan & Gaughan, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0119-01", "first_page_order": 135, "last_page_order": 137 }