1 OF TOWNSHIP OF HANCOCK et al, Keweenaw Ass'n v. School Dist. No. 1

• Citation: 98 Mich. 437,57 N.W. 404
• Parties: KEWEENAW ASS'N, Limited, v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF TOWNSHIP OF HANCOCK et al.
• Decision Date: 09 January 1894
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

57 N.W. 404

98 Mich. 437

KEWEENAW ASS'N, Limited, v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF TOWNSHIP OF HANCOCK et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 9, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Houghton county, in chancery; Norman W Haire, Judge.

Bill by the Keweenaw Association, Limited, against school district No. 1 of the township of Hancock, and William F. Miller treasurer of Houghton county, to set aside school taxes levied on complainant's land, and to enjoin the sale of said land to enforce payment of the taxes. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Irving D. Hanscom, for appellant.

Dunstan & Hanchette, for appellees.

HOOKER J.

The complainant is a private corporation, owning a large amount of land in the township of Hancock, Houghton county. This township is about 27 miles long, averages nearly 8 miles in with, and is sparsely settled, except in and about the city of Hancock. The bill is filed to set aside the school taxes levied upon complainant's lands, and to enjoin a sale of such lands by the county treasurer for delinquent school taxes. All other taxes levied upon these lands were paid before the suit was commenced. The records of the township and school district do not show the organization of any school district, but they indicate that school district No. 1 had existed for many years. Up to 1869 it elected three officers, viz. moderator, director, and assessor, prescribed by the primary school law. After that time it appears to have existed as a graded school district. Six trustees managed its affairs for a time, and afterwards five, in conformity to the changed condition of the graded school law. In 1875 it built a schoolhouse in the village of Hancock, costing $22,000, of which $15,000 was made a bonded indebtedness, and the tax in question included a sum levied to pay interest upon, and a part of the principal of, this bonded debt. At times, as the necessities of the inhabitants required, school was taught in two other places in the township, one being nine miles from the village. These schools were all provided for and conducted by the officers of school district No. 1, which appears to have been the only school district in the township. We think the evidence fairly sustains the proposition that this was a graded school district, and was generally recognized to be coextensive with the township, which it might lawfully be under the graded school act, (How. St. � 5135 et seq.,) which relieves such districts from the restriction to nine sections of land, as provided by section 5033. No attack is made upon the graded school district act, unless it be impliedly, and we will pass the subject with the remark that the opinion of Mr. Justice Cooley in the case of Stuart v. School Dist., 30 Mich. 69, seems to have set the question at rest. In an interesting review of the policy of the territory and state, he vindicates the wisdom of that act, and determines its validity.

Finding as we do, that a graded school district has been in existence since 1875, assuming to be coextensive with the township, and in the exercise of corporate powers, it would perhaps be sufficient to say that the regularity of its organization cannot be attacked in this proceeding. Fractional School Dist. v. School Inspectors, 27 Mich. 3; Clement v. Everest, 29 Mich. 19; Stuart v. School Dist., 30 Mich. 69; Stockle v. Selsbee, 41 Mich. 615, 2 N.W. 900; Jaquith v. Hale, 31 Mich. 430; People v. Every, 38 Mich. 405. Much of the land in the township was new and sparsely settled, and difficulty was experienced in the collection of taxes, which in some, if not all, years, were spread upon all of the taxable property in the township. This led to the passage of Act No. 267 of the Laws of 1891, which provided that all land in the township not theretofore a part of school district No. 1 should be attached to said district. This law is alleged to be unconstitutional, upon the ground that it violates article 13, � 4, of the constitution, which provides that "the legislature shall, within five years from the adoption of this constitution, provide for and establish a system of primary schools, whereby a school shall be kept without charge for tuition, at least three months in each year, in every school district in the state; and all instruction in said schools shall be conducted in the English language." It is argued that after such system was established by the legislature it could not be lawfully abolished, or such changes made as would impair it, by excepting certain localities from its provisions, which it is said this act does. Article 13 establishes a department of public instruction, and provides a primary school fund. It directs the legislature to establish a system of primary schools throughout the state. This the legislature did by the adoption of laws pointing out the method of creating and altering districts, prescribing methods of raising money for the support of schools, and of choosing officers to manage school affairs. It has been already shown that the graded school act is to be considered valid, and that it permits graded school districts to embrace more than nine sections of land. When this district found difficulty in collecting its taxes, if it were true, as contended by complainants, that it did not comprise the entire township, there was no provision of law under which the district could be enlarged, as there was no other organized district upon which the school inspectors could act. Simpkins v. Ward, ...