Stockton School District v. Wright
Before: Cooper
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion.
COOPER, C.
—This appeal is from a judgment awarding plaintiff a writ of mandate against defendant, in his official capacity, commanding him to apportion to plaintiff $4,630.13 of public school moneys.
A demurrer was filed to the petition, and upon its being overruled, defendant answered, setting forth facts which are practically conceded to be true. As the facts are substantially agreed upon, it will not be necessary to pass upon the ruling on the demurrer.
Plaintiff is a school district of the county of San Joaquin,
[65]
and defendant is the county superintendent of common schools in said county.
The amount of money sought to be apportioned—and which was directed to be apportioned by the judgment—is school money raised by state and county school taxes, and is not money raised by special or high school taxes. It is claimed that it is the duty of defendant, in his official capacity, to apportion the money to plaintiff, under subdivision 4 of section 1858 of the Political Code, which provides that all school money remaining on hand after certain apportionments “must be apportioned to the several districts in proportion to the average daily attendance in each .district during the preceding school year.” The question is as to the meaning of the words, “ average daily attendance.” Do they mean average daily attendance in the common schools of the district? or do they mean the average daily attendance in all the schools, including the high school and evening schools? It is necessary to consider other sections and provisions of the code and of the constitution, so that the intent of the legislature may be ascertained.
It is provided in section 5 of article IX of the constitution, that the “legislature shall provide for a system of common schools, by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district at least six months in every year, after the first year in which a school has been established.” Section 6 of the same article provides: “The public school system shall include primary and grammar schools, and such high schools, evening schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may be established by the legislature, or by municipal or district authority; but the entire revenue derived from the state school fund and the state school tax shall be applied exclusively to the support of primary and grammar schools.” The provisions of the Political Code follow in this respect the constitutional provisions. It is conceded by plaintiff that the entire revenue derived from the state school tax must be applied exclusively to the support of primary and grammar schools, and that none of the money here sought to be apportioned can be used for the support of the high school or the evening schools of said district.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)