State ex inf. Rice ex rel. Allman v. Hawk, 41640

Citation360 Mo. 490,228 S.W.2d 785
Decision Date10 April 1950
Docket NumberNo. 41640,No. 1,41640,1
PartiesSTATE ex inf. RICE ex rel. ALLMAN et al. v. HAWK et al
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Justin Ruark, C. E. Ruyle and Wayne V. Slankard, Neosho, for appellants.

Birkhead & Teters, Carthage, for respondents.

ASCHEMEYER, Commissioner.

This is a proceeding in quo warranto at the information of the Prosecuting Attorney of Newton County, Missouri, at the relation of the members of the Board of Directors of Midway Consolidated School District No. C-9 of Newton County against Duard Hawk, Kleber Dunaway and Luther Green who, prior to March 31, 1949, constituted the Board of Directors of Common School District No. 110 of Newton County, challenging the right of the defendant-respondents to hold and exercise the office of school directors of said Common School District. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant-respondents (hereafter referred to as respondents) adjudging to them the office of directors of said Common School District and plaintiff-relators (hereafter called appellants) have appealed from such judgment. The office of school director constitutes an 'office under this State' and since this proceeding involves title to such an office, appellate jurisdiction is in this Court. Constitution of 1945, Art. V. Sec. 3, Mo.R.S.A.; State ex inf. Mitchell ex rel. Goodman v. Heath, 345 Mo. 226, 132 S.W.2d 1001; State ex rel. Worsham v. Ellis, 329 Mo. 124, 44 S.W.2d 129.

The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts which may be summarized as follows:

Appellants constitute the Board of Directors of Midway Consolidated School District No. C-9 which is a lawfully organized and existing consolidated school district of Newton County, Missouri. On and prior to March 31, 1949, Common School District No. 110 was a duly organized and existing common school district of said County of which respondents were duly constituted as members of the Board of Directors. The territory comprising said Common School District is adjacent to and borders upon territory comprising Midway Consolidated School District No. C-9 and Fairview Consolidated School District No. C-1.

On April 1, 1948, the qualified voters of said Common School District voted upon two propositions at a special election conducted under the provisions of Sec. 10484, R.S.1939, as re-enacted and amended by Laws 1947, Vol. 1, p. 507, Mo.R.S.A. Sec. 10484. One proposition was to release a specified portion of the territory of said Common School District for the purpose of annexation to Fairview Consolidated School District No. C-1. The other proposition was to release the remainder of the territory of said Common School District for the purpose of annexation to Midway Consolidated School District No. C-9. The two propositions were submitted on one ballot and both were defeated.

Within less than two years following this special election, the Board of Directors of said Common School District, acting upon a petition signed by the requisite number of qualified voters, ordered a special meeting or special election of the qualified voters of said school district, to be held on March 31, 1949, at a designated time and place, to vote upon a proposition of annexing said entire Common School District to Midway Consolidated School District No. C-9. This special election or special meeting was called to be held under the provisions of Sec. 10484, supra. Proper notice of this special meeting or special election was given.

At a special meeting held on March 30, 1949, the Board of Directors of said Common School District adopted a resolution annulling and rescinding its order calling the special meeting or special election to be held on March 31, 1949, on the ground that such special election would be null and void under the provisions of Sec. 10484, supra, because it would be held within two years after the special election of April 1, 1948. Oral notification of this action of the Board of Directors was given to an unestimated number of voters who were informed that no special meeting or special election would be held on March 31, 1949.

There were approximately 87 qualified voters in said school district at that time. Approximately 63 of these voters assembled at the appointed time and place on March 31, 1949. The Clerk of said school district called the assembled persons to order; read the resolution of rescission passed by the Board of Directors; caused Sec. 10484, supra, to be read; and caused to be read a legal opinion concerning the validity of such a special meeting or special election. A motion to adjourn was made and seconded, but without putting such motion to a vote, the Clerk of said school district declared the assembly adjourned. Approximately 24 of the voters left the place of voting immediately. The remainder proceeded to organize by electing a chairman and secretary. The chairman read and explained the proposition to be voted upon under the order of the Board of Directors convening the special meeting. Ballots were distributed and a vote was taken There were 38 votes cast in favor of the proposition to annex said school district to Midway Consolidated School District No. C-9, and only one vote was against such annexation.

The result and proceedings of such election at the special meeting were certified to the Board of Directors of Midway Consolidated School District No. C-9 and to the Clerk of said Common School District. On May 5, 1949, the Board of Directors of Midway Consolidated School District No. C-9, at a regular meeting, unanimously voted to accept the territory comprising said Common School District and to annex such territory. The Clerk of said Common School District was notified of such action and written demand was made on respondents to relinquish all claim and title to the property, money, and records belonging to said Common School District. Respondents refused to relinquish such property and records on the ground that the special meeting and special election of March 31, 1949, was invalid; that said Common School District was and, remained a body corporate and Common School District of which they are the qualified and acting Board of Directors with full right to the possession of all property and recors owned by said Common School District; and that they have no duty to relinquish the same to appellants.

The only question presented upon this appeal is whether the second special election held at the special meeting conducted on March 31, 1949, was valid under the provisions of Sec. 10484, supra, in view of the fact that it was held within a period of two years after the special election held on April 1, 1948. This requires an interpretation of Sec. 10484, supra, the pertinent provisions of which are as follows: 'Whenever an entire school district, or a part of a district, whether in either case it be a common school district, or a city, town or consolidated school district, which adjoins any city, town, consolidated or village school district * * * desires to be attached thereto for school purposes, upon the reception of a petition setting forth such fact and signed by ten qualified voters of such district,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Gaddy v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 23 d2 Novembro d2 1965
    ...Mo., 338 S.W.2d 827, 833(5); State ex rel. Spink v. Kemp, 365 Mo. 368, 397, 283 S.W.2d 502, 527(39); State ex inf. Rice ex rel. Allman v. Hawk, 360 Mo. 490, 495, 228 S.W.2d 785, 788(5); Berry-Kofron Dental Laboratory Co. v. Smith, 345 Mo. 922, 926, 137 S.W.2d 452, 454(4); State ex rel. City......
  • Rathjen v. Reorganized School Dist. R-II of Shelby County
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 d1 Novembro d1 1955
    ...ordinary meaning unless such construction will defeat the manifest intent of the constitutional provision. State ex inf. Rice ex rel. Allman v. Hawk, 360 Mo. 490, 228 S.W.2d 785, 788. We cannot agree that it is necessary, as plaintiffs contend, to treat the term 'school purposes' as surplus......
  • Sours v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 d1 Agosto d1 1980
    ...the statute an intent which is contrary to the legislative intent made evident by the phraseology employed. State ex inf. Rice ex rel. Allman v. Hawk, 360 Mo. 490, 228 S.W.2d 785; Steggall v. Morris, 363 Mo. 1224, 258 S.W.2d 577. The legislative pronouncement means what it says . . . 376 S.......
  • State ex rel. Hopkins v. Stemmons
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 22 d1 Abril d1 1957
    ...afford any legislate basis for refusal to accept and apply that language honestly and faithfully. State ex inf. Rice ex rel. Allman v. Hawk, 360 Mo. 490, 495, 228 S.W.2d 785, 788(5); Berry-Kofron Dental Laboratory Co. v. Smith, 345 Mo. 922, 926, 137 S.W.2d 452, 454(4); Bellerive Inv. Co. v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT