
    JURISDICTION WHERE COUNTY BOARDS OF EDUCATION ARE UNABLE TO AGREE.
    Common Pleas Court of Greene County.
    Board of Education of Clinton County v. Board of Education of Greene County.
    Decided, March 1, 1917.
    
      Schools — Transfer of Territory from One County to Another — Respective County Boards Unable to Agree Upon a Division of Funds and Indebtedness — Common Pleas Court Without Jurisdiction to Aot in the Matter.
    
    Where more than 75 per cent, of the electors have filed their petition with the' county board of education, and such board of education had duly made a transfer according to the provisions of Section 4696, and the boards of education affected thereby are unable to make an equitable division of the funds or indebtedness, a court of equity is without jurisdiction to act and determine a division of the funds or indebtedness in order to make such transfer effective. In the absence of any provision that in case the boards could not agree that either board would have the right to bring a proceeding in the court of common pleas to have the same determined, the court would be without authority to act.
    
      S. L. Gregory and Hayes & Hayes, for plaintiff.
    
      F. L. Johnson, contra.
   Kyle, J.

This case is an action of the Clinton county board of education against the county board of education of Greene county, by reason of the fact that the two boards are unable to agree to a division of the funds and indebtedness under the provisions of Section 4696 (106 O. L., page 396), to make effective a transfer of territory from Jefferson township, Greene county, to Liberty township, Clinton county.

It would appear that all the proper steps have been taken and that more than seventy-five (75) per cent, of the electors of the territory sought to be transferred petitioned for such transfer, and it thereby became mandatory upon the Greene county board of education to make such transfer, and that such transfer was made by the act of the board as provided by statute.

The statute further provides:

“No such transfer shall be in effect until the county board of education and the board of education to which the territory is to be transferred, each pass resolutions by a majority vote of the full membership of each board, and until an equitable division of the funds or indebtedness be decided upon by the boards of education acting in the transfer.”

From the evidence it appeared that the two boards had one or two joint meetings. I know of no provision authorizing a joint meeting of the boards, and any such meeting would not be authorized for the parties stand in adverse character and are each to act independently of the other in their negotiations.

There is a bonded indebtedness on the Jefferson township rural school district amounting to $50,000, and some funds on hand — a small amount, approximately $2,700.

The Greene county board of education proposed that an equitable division of the indebtedness would be for the district transferred to pay their proportionate share of the outstanding bonded indebtedness. This was refused by the Clinton county board, and no counter proposition was made by them, as appears from their record.

The authorities cited in the Wisconsin reports indicate what may be considered as assets and how a division should be made when territory is detached.

The principal question is: Has the court jurisdiction under the facts presented to entertain this action ?

The provision for the constitution of centralized schools and the transfer of territory from one district to another is purely statutory, and in order to make effective such transfer the statute must be looked to' for authority, and it provides that it shall only be effective when the county boards of education have passed resolutions for an equitable division of the funds or indebtedness.

In this ease it is claimed that the boards can not agree. From the evidence it would seem there had only been one proposition by the Greene county. board, and that was rejected, and no alternative or counter proposition was made by the Clinton county board.

But suppose there had been negotiations. The statute makes no provision for any other tribunal to determine what would be an equitable division of the funds or indebtedness, and for the court to assume to act and settle and determine a division of the funds, or indebtedness, would be going beyond the statute and would be unauthorized. In the absence of any provision that in ease the boards could not agree that either board would have the right to bring a proceeding in the court of common pleas to have the same determined, the court would be without authority to act. Therefore, my conclusion is that this court is without jurisdiction to intervene, and the court will find that this case should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. An entry may be drawn accordingly.  