Murdock v. Perkins , 219 Ga. 756 ( 1964 )


Menu:
  • Duckworth, Chief Justice,

    dissenting. In the first place, when eight of the ten members of the State Board voted four to four on the appeal, they neither affirmed nor reversed the County Board, hence the appeal remained until the subsequent action by the full board of ten in voting seven to three to reverse the County Board. Code § 102-102 (5); 2 AmJur2d 31, § 198. But if it were conceded that the tie vote was an affirmance of the County Board’s ruling, since no one has acted thereon and will be hurt by reconsidering and reversing that decision upon the discovery that some members acted under a misconception of the facts, or that it was due to mistake or fraud, it should have been set aside as was done. It is immaterial that this might be done over a long period since a prerequisite to its being done is always that it must not hurt anyone who has relied upon it. Therefore, since it can hurt no one, why not correct it to do right?

    Courts should exercise judicial restraint to the point of recognizing that they are neither empowered nor qualified to operate our public school system. This duty is, by the Constitution, entrusted to the State and local school boards, with the State Board controlling. If the Board makes a mistake and knows it, courts should not compel it to perpetuate that mistake which will injuriously affect the lives of all the school children in the school unit affected. To compel school authorities to thus con*765tinue their mistakes to the irreparable injury of school children is to completely misconceive the humane and noble cause which they are commissioned to serve.

Document Info

Docket Number: 22361, 22379, 22380

Citation Numbers: 135 S.E.2d 869, 219 Ga. 756

Judges: Duck-Worth, Duckworth, Head, Mobley

Filed Date: 3/5/1964

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/21/2023