inaction of the board prior to its reorganization in June. In other words it is claimed in support of the appeal that the postponement by the board of the performance of its duty under the act, deprived it of jurisdiction, extinguished the relator's statutory right and created a vacancy in the office, to be filled by it under section 7 of the act of May 8, 1854. The consequences of an allowance of this claim are well calculated to raise a doubt respecting the soundness of it. In the first place the proposition that the effect of the neglect or refusal of the board to discharge its plain duty when the parties appeared before it, was to deprive them of their statutory rights and it of the power to perform that duty at a subsequent meeting, is not tenable. There is nothing in the statute which in terms or by necessary implication attaches such consequences to the non-performance of the duty it imposes. The provision in relation to the time of appearance by the parties was complied with by them, and while it may be inferred from this provision that it was the duty of the board to determine their rights at that time, there is no legislative mandate to this effect, nor penalty prescribed for a failure to do so. Having regard to the subject-matter, object and language of the act of 1862, we are of the opinion that the provision in regard to time is directory only and that the board could have lawfully determined the rights of the parties thereunder at any lawful meeting held at or before the beginning of the school year when the term of office for which they were candidates commenced. The law puts the duty of determining their rights under it upon the board of school directors of the proper district. The board is composed of six persons, two of whom retire from it at the end of each school year and their places are taken by persons chosen for them at the preceding election. The change thus effected in the membership of the board has no effect upon its powers and duties under the act of 1862. It follows from these views that it was the duty of the reorganized board to comply with the relator's request and determine his rights to a seat therein, and that neither its refusal, the neglect of the board before the change of membership in it, nor the act of May 8, 1854, authorized the appointment to which this litigation relates. We conclude, therefore, that the learned court below did not err in entering the judgment complained of.”26 Women eligible to office of school director. 103. Women, twenty-one years of age and upwards, shall be eligible to any office of control or management under the school laws of this state."7 Legal residences. 104. Wherever by the requirements of any law, a particular residence is a necessary qualification for the election or appointment of any officer, removal from such residence shall operate as a forfeit of the office. 28 Vacancies without resignation. 105. Every member ceasing to be a resident of the district for which he was a director, thereby vacates his office without resignation, from the day when he ceases being a resident, and the fact being known and entered on the minutes, another is to be appointed in his place. The same principle applies to changes of residence from one ward to another in cities and boroughs, except in cases where the election is by a concurrent vote.29 Adopting city charter. 106. It is held that school directors of a borough do not lose their offices upon the adoption of a city charter. 30 Title of school director. 107. Where the right to an office is in question, the controversy must be settled by a quo warranto and not by mandamus.31 26. Commonwealth vs. Meanor, 167, Pa. 292, 1895. 27. Sec. 3 of Article X of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. 28. Act May 15, 1874, Sec. 12, P. L. 187. 29. School Laws and Decisions, page 49, 1903. 30. Knew vs. Krause, 3 Pa. C. C. 563, 1887. 31. Carlisle School District vs. Humrich, 18 Pa. C. C. 322, 1893. Directors exempt from serving in certain offices. 108. All directors shall be exempted from serving in any township, city or borough office, and from the performance of any militia duty.32 The exempting from township, city or borough office, does not prohibit the holding of these offices, except that of auditor and tax collector, but merely confers the right to be excused, if the director desires it.33 Incompatibility of officers. 109. The office of school director is incompatible with that of collector of school taxes, (relating to Schuylkill county, see special act of February 17th, 1859, P. L. p. 51) constable,34 paymaster, commissioner of roads, township or borough auditor and county commissioners.35 School director can act as judge. 110. A candidate for school director can act as judge of the election at which he is being voted for.36 34. Act May 8, 1876, Sec. 1, P. L. 179. 35. Act May 15, 1874, Sec. 7, P. L. 187. 36. Commonwealth vs. Whitlock, 12 D. R. 791, 1903. 121. Election of secretary...... How to determine the rights of rival candidates.... 122. 123. Certificate of election......... PAGE 43 43 45 45 46 46 46 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 129. President cannot employ teachers..... Duty of secretary after annual appointment of teachers..... 52 52 Violation of duty of treasurer to purchase school orders.. 53 159. Liability of treasurer for failure to pay money to successor..... 160. 54 54 Bank........ 161. Annual settlement of treasurer.. 162. When settlement is conclusive........ 163. Erroneous surcharge of treasurer. Remedy... 164. PAGE 55 55 55 55 165. Unlawful payment. When treasurer liable... 55 166. No discretionary power of treasurer......... 55 167. Penalty for failure of treasurer to pay over funds..... 56 168. Power to remove treasurer... 56 When board shall organize. 116. The organization of each board of school directors shall be had on the first Monday of June or within ten days thereafter in each year.' Factional organization. 117. In this case all the directors were legally elected but the board was divided into two warring factions in sections of three each. Each faction met within the time prescribed by law and declared the seats of the other three members vacant, on the ground that after due notice they had neglected to attend regular meetings of the board. Each board filled the vacancies and then proceeded to organize and assumed authority in all matters relating to the schools. On petition of more than six taxable inhabitants or the district, the court of quarter sessions found that the boards had not been lawfully organized, removed both sets of directors and appointed entirely new men in their places. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Dean said, in part :-"The testimony convinced the learned judge of the court below, that these parties, instead of honestly attempting organization, each set of three was trying to usurp all the power and exclude the other three from any share of control. Each had a previous knowledge of the meetings held by the other; at any one of these the whole six could have met and organized, had that been the purpose; and if they had done so, no question could have been raised as to the fact of legality of the organization. But they purposely refrained from meeting together for such organization, because that would have included in the local board the obnoxious members. There are many pro I. Act April 22, 1863. Sec. 1, P. L. 523. |