McClerkin v. San Mateo School District

SHENK, J. The plaintiff, a minor, resides in Baywood in San Majeo County. Baywood is within the territorial confines of San Mateo School District, which is an elementary school district. During the four years prior to the commencement of the action, the plaintiff attended the elementary school in Hillsborough School District, also in San Mateo County. [364]About twenty other children who reside in Baywood in San Mateo School District attended the elementary school in Hills-borough School District prior to the commencement of the action. The attendance of such children at the latter school was with the consent of the trustees of Hillsborough School District, but without the consent of the trustees of San Mateo School District. In January, 1934, the trustees of San Mateo School District withheld their consent to the attendance at the Hillsborough school of the children residing in Baywood, and contended that the attendance of the children at the Hillsborough school without their consent should not deprive the San Mateo School District of its apportionment of moneys from the state school fund based upon the school attendance of such children. This action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and said twenty other children against San Mateo School District, Hillsborough School District, and Pansy Jewett Abbott, as superintendent of schools of San Mateo County, for a declaration of the rights and duties of all the parties. The trial court held that the children were entitled to attend the Hillsborough school with the consent of the trustees of Hillsborough School District and the consent of the county superintendent of schools of San Mateo County; that the consent of the trustees of San Mateo School District was unnecessary, and that when the attendance of such children at the Hillsborough school was with the consent of the trustees of Hillsborough School District and of the San Mateo County superintendent of schools, San Mateo School District was not entitled to credit for apportionment of any funds allotted to Hillsborough School District out of the state school fund by virtue of the attendance of such children at the Hills-borough school. Judgment was entered accordingly. The defendants, with the exception of Hillsborough School District, have appealed.

For the purpose of submitting the issues to the trial court it was stipulated that the defendant county superintendent of schools gave her consent to the attendance of the children at the Hillsborough school. Two questions only are now presented. First, whether the consent of the trustees of San Mateo School District is a requirement before the children residing in that district may attend a school in another district; and secondly, whether the school district of attendance