county superintendent of public instruction in Oklahoma

2024Comm'rs , 1970 OK 67, ¶ 27 , 468 P.2d 501, 508 (the Legislature has the authority to define the duties and powers of the several county officers and regulate county governmental affairs (citing Bd. of Comm'rs v. News-Dispatch Print. & Audit Co. , 1924 OK 396 , 231 P. 250 )); see also Tulsa Exposition & Fair Corp ., 1970 OK 67, ¶ 27 , 468 P.2d at 508 ("Boards of County Commissioners derive their powers and authority wholly from the statutes, and acts performed by them must be done pursuant to authority granted by valid legislative action."). ¶5 Just as the Legislature may abolish or change the

2024Comm'rs , 1970 OK 67, ¶ 27 , 468 P.2d 501, 508 (the Legislature has the authority to define the duties and powers of the several county officers and regulate county governmental affairs (citing Bd. of Comm'rs v. News-Dispatch Print. & Audit Co. , 1924 OK 396 , 231 P. 250 )); see also Tulsa Exposition & Fair Corp ., 1970 OK 67, ¶ 27 , 468 P.2d at 508 ("Boards of County Commissioners derive their powers and authority wholly from the statutes, and acts performed by them must be done pursuant to authority granted by valid legislative action."). ¶5 Just as the Legislature may abolish or change the

1927S. 1921), as construed by Jumper et al. v. Lyles, 77 Okla. 57 , 185 Pac. 1084 , the county superintendent of public instruction of a county is authorized to designate what school or schools in each school district shall be the separate school and which class of children, either white or colored, shall have the privilege of attending such separate school or schools of said school district.

1927S. 1921), as construed by Jumper et al. v. Lyles, 77 Okla. 57 , 185 Pac. 1084 , the county superintendent of public instruction of a county is authorized to designate what school or schools in each school district shall be the separate school and which class of children, either white or colored, shall have the privilege of attending such separate school or schools of said school district.

2010Barton relied on an earlier case, Bass v. Board of Commissioners , 222 P. 995 (Okla. 1924), which held that where the salary of a county superintendent of public instruction was fixed by a 1913 law, and after the county superintendent was elected but before he took office in 1919, the Legislature amended the 1913 salary act to make the county superintendent's salary the same as that of the *Page 8 county clerk in that county, thereby allowing an increase in pay.

1959No. 6 of McClain County v. Board of County Commissioners of McClain County, supra [ 108 Okl. 254 , 236 P. 22 ], and quoted from People v. Sholem, supra; “This brings us to the inquiry whether the Legislature intended to give the right of appeal only to those who oppose the creation of a new district after such petition .had been acted upon favorably to the petitioners who seek to create a new district. “ ‘The Legislature shall pass no law granting to any association, corpora *257 tion, or individual any exclusive rights, privileges or immunities within this state.’ Section 51, Art. 5, Constitu

1953That appeal is to the district court where, as was held in the case of Huebert v. Keen, 190 Okl. 655 , 127 P.2d 180, 182 , that, “On appeal to district court from an order of the county superintendent of public instruction sustaining or denying a petition for the annexation of territory to a school district * * *, the functions- of the court are to review the whole record and to consider any proper evidence offered by- the parties, and to make judicial determination of the question whether the Act was substantially complied with, and to affirm or vacate the order as the circumstances may requi

1953That appeal is to the district court where, as was held in the case of Huebert v. Keen, 190 Okl. 655 , 127 P.2d 180, 182 , that, “On appeal to district court from an order of the county superintendent of public instruction sustaining or denying a petition for the annexation of territory to a school district * * *, the functions- of the court are to review the whole record and to consider any proper evidence offered by- the parties, and to make judicial determination of the question whether the Act was substantially complied with, and to affirm or vacate the order as the circumstances may requi

1933Riley v. City of Lawton, 101 Okla. 176 , 224 P. 347 , this court said: “The petition of the plaintiff alleged that the valuation of school district No. 39 would be reduced over 29 per cent, of the assessed valuation by the annexation of the territory to the independent school district.

1933Riley v. City of Lawton, 101 Okla. 176 , 224 P. 347 , this court said: “The petition of the plaintiff alleged that the valuation of school district No. 39 would be reduced over 29 per cent, of the assessed valuation by the annexation of the territory to the independent school district.

1929No. 19, 119 Okla., 20 , 248 Pac. 324 , and School Dist.

1929No. 19, 119 Okla., 20 , 248 Pac. 324 , and School Dist.

1929In Board of Ed. of Sapulpa v. Board of Com’rs of Creek Co., 127 Okla. 132 , 260 Pac. 22 , it was held: “Not only are the separate scholastic enumerations to be considered in 'the apportionment of funds derived from the common school fund as aid, but such separate schools are entitled to equal benefit in the expenditure of such funds by reason of section 3, art. 11 of the Constitution, and section 10498, C.

1929In Board of Ed. of Sapulpa v. Board of Com’rs of Creek Co., 127 Okla. 132 , 260 Pac. 22 , it was held: “Not only are the separate scholastic enumerations to be considered in 'the apportionment of funds derived from the common school fund as aid, but such separate schools are entitled to equal benefit in the expenditure of such funds by reason of section 3, art. 11 of the Constitution, and section 10498, C.

1929S. 1921, and section 10321, Id., qualified electors of any part of a school district, aggrieved by reason of an order made by the county superintendent of public instruction attaching certain adjacent territory to a consolidated school dis-inet, may appeal to the board of county commissioners from the action of such county superintendent; and by reason of such right of appeal, the writ of certiorari does not lie.” Thereafter, on June 10, 1927, the present action was filed in the district court of Wagoner county, where the plaintiffs, after reciting in their petition the filing of the original

1928There is no law for this exchange, and we do not think there is any construction that would justify this contention.” Following this last-cited 'case, this court held contrary to the instant opinion in the case of School District No. 68, Bryan Co., v. Board of Com’rs of Bryan County (a suit against the county) 122 Okla. 116 , 251 Pac. 1118 , in which this court stated that the law announced in the said case of School District No. 19 of Carter County was applicable.

1928There is no law for this exchange, and we do not think there is any construction that would justify this contention.” Following this last-cited 'case, this court held contrary to the instant opinion in the case of School District No. 68, Bryan Co., v. Board of Com’rs of Bryan County (a suit against the county) 122 Okla. 116 , 251 Pac. 1118 , in which this court stated that the law announced in the said case of School District No. 19 of Carter County was applicable.

1925The litigants should he looked upon with equal favor by the law, and have the same right to appeal and 'the same questions should -be open to each.” Plaintiffs in their brief cite the case of School District No. 7 of Johnston County v. Cunningham et al., 51 Okla. 261 , 151 Pac. 633 , which action was commenced by the plaintiffs filing a petition with the county superintendent of public instruction of Johnston county to detach certain territory described in the petition from school district No. 7 of Johnston county, for the purpose of forming a new school district out of the same.

1925The litigants should he looked upon with equal favor by the law, and have the same right to appeal and 'the same questions should -be open to each.” Plaintiffs in their brief cite the case of School District No. 7 of Johnston County v. Cunningham et al., 51 Okla. 261 , 151 Pac. 633 , which action was commenced by the plaintiffs filing a petition with the county superintendent of public instruction of Johnston county to detach certain territory described in the petition from school district No. 7 of Johnston county, for the purpose of forming a new school district out of the same.

1919This provision of the Constitution was under consideration in Mason v. School District No. 72, 66 Oklahoma, 168 Pac. 798 , wherein the contention was made •that at the election provided for three-fifths of all of the electors residing in the school district were necessary to carry such election.

1917“But it may toe contended that if the district court acquired no jurisdiction, then this court has no jurisdiction to render any judgment on appeal from the district court; but this court has settled that. question in the case of Hadlock v. County Commissioners, 5 Okla. 574 [ 49 Pac. 1012 ], wherein the court said: ‘And even if it be held that the judgment of the 'board of commissioners is a void judgment, still appeal will lie.’ “If I have shown, as I think I have, that no legal appeal was taken from the decision of the county superintendent of public instruction in either of the three eases,

1911It should always be received with caution, and never ought .to be received at all, unless the evidence is of direct declarations ■of that kind which naturally call for contradiction; some assertion made to the party with respect to his right, which by his -.silence, he acquiesces in.” (Rolfe v. Rolfe, 10 Ga. 143 -5.) See, also, Moore v. Smith, 14 S. & R. 388, The next contention of the appellant is that the court erred in permitting the state to show that the county superintendent of public instruction had advised ¿he deceased to make certain entries in his record as clerk of the school board