State ex rel. Bd. of Ed. of Springfield Local School Dist., Summit County v. Maxwell

• Decision Date: 14 March 1945
• Docket Number: 30242.
• Citation: 60 N.E.2d 183,144 Ohio St. 565
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SPRINGFIELD LOCAL SCHOOL DIST., SUMMIT COUNTY, et al. v. MAXWELL.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

60 N.E.2d 183

144 Ohio St. 565

STATE ex rel. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SPRINGFIELD LOCAL SCHOOL DIST., SUMMIT COUNTY, et al. v. MAXWELL.

No. 30242.

Supreme Court of Ohio

March 14, 1945

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The terms of Section 2293-21, General Code, providing that the notice of an election on a proposed bond issue of a political subdivision shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for four consecutive weeks prior to the election, are sufficiently met where the notice is published once a week for four consecutive weeks but the first notice appeared slightly less than 28 days before the election.

2. The bond issue of a political subdivision, approved at an election by more than the requisite percentage of electors voting thereon, will not be invalidated on the ground that the resolution of necessity passed under Section 2293-19 General Code, provided for a maximum maturity of 20 years whereas the notice of the election and the ballots submitted provided for a tax levy covering a maximum period of 22.5 years.

Thomas M. Miller, of Columbus, for relators.

Alva J. Russell, Pros. Atty., and W. A. Spencer, both of Akron, for respondent.

ZIMMERMAN Judge.

In this action in mandamus originating in this court and submitted for final determination upon the demurrer to the amended petition, the Board of Education of the Springfield Local School District, Summit county, Ohio, and an individual taxpayer of such district, as relators, seek a writ requiring the respondent, the clerk of such board, to sign, execute and, when signed by the board president, deliver certain bonds to the successful bidders at the price at which they were sold. The prayer of the amended petition also asks for a declaration that the bonds are legal and valid obligations of the board.

It is averred in the amended petition that on August 10, 1943, the board of education referred to, passed a resolution declaring the necessary of a bond issue of $240,000 to build and equip a high school building and declaring that such bond issue be submitted to a vote of the electors at the election on November 2, 1943; and that this was done and the bond issue was approved by more than 65 per cent of those voting thereon.

The allegations of the amended petition show that the provisions of Section 2293-19 et seq., General Code, a part of the Uniform Bond Act, were complied with except: (1) The first notice of the election at which the bond issue was to be voted on was published less than 28 days before the election; (2) the resolution of necessity and the resolution determining to proceed with the election provided for a maximum maturity of 20 years (40 semiannual maturities beginning April 1, 1945), whereas the bonds sought to be issued have an actual maximum maturity of 22 years and the notice of election and the ballot provided for a tax levy for a maximum period of 22.5 years.

Are such variance material and of sufficient gravity to justify the respondent in refusing to act in accordance with the prayer of the petition?

As to the first question, notice of the election on the bond issue was advertised on October 8, 15, 22 and 29, 1943, in a newspaper of general circulation in the school district. Such notice contained the information that the matter of the bond issue would be submitted at the election to be held on November 2, 1943, stated the purpose of the bond issue, the amount thereof and that a levy would be required outside the constitutional ten-mill limitation 'estimated by the county auditor to average 2.86 mills for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to 28.6 cents for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for a maximum period of 22.5 years to pay the principal and interest of such bonds.'

Section 2293-21, General Code, provides in part:

'Notice of the election shall be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the subdivision once a week for four consecutive weeks prior thereto * * *.'

Most of the cases hold that if there is no compliance with statutory provisions as to the giving of notice of an election pertaining to a bond issue, the election is rendered invalid. State ex rel. Jackson v. Board of County Com'rs of Fayette Co., 122 Ohio St. 456, 172 N.E. 154. However, where there is substantial compliance with the statutory requirements and there is nothing to indicate that the result of the election might have been different had there been full compliance, the election will not be invalidated. City of Cincinnati v. Puchta, Mayor, 94 Ohio St. 431, 115 N.E. 278; 43 American Jurisprudence, 340, Section 86; 119 A.L.R. 661 et seq., annotation.

The chief purpose of Section 2293-21, General Code, is evident, to wit, four weekly publications preceding the election. These were made in the instant case. The notice of the election having been given in substantial compliance with the statute, the defect pointed out was not of sufficient moment to justify a holding that such notice was inadequate.

As to the second question, the discrepancy challenged is...