School Dist. No. 14 In Fremont County v. School Dist. No. 21 In Fremont County

Decision Date19 April 1937
Docket Number1996
Citation67 P.2d 192,51 Wyo. 370
PartiesSCHOOL DIST. NO. 14 IN FREMONT COUNTY v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 21 IN FREMONT COUNTY
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Rehearing denied August 31, 1937, Reported at: 51 Wyo. 370 at 384.

APPEAL from the District Court, Fremont County; C. D. MURANE, Judge.

Action by School District No. 14, Fremont County, against School District No. 21, Fremont County, wherein the latter filed a counterclaim. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Rehearing denied August 31, 1937. See 71 P.2d 137.

Reversed, with Directions.

For the defendant and appellant, there was a brief and the cause was argued orally by A. H. Maxwell of Lander.

Our law governing apportionments of property upon school districts division is Sections 99-901-2. The constitution restricts legislative acts to one subject, which must be expressed in the title, with some exceptions. Article 3, Sec. 24. Chapter 150, Laws 1921, fails to comply with the above requirements. 25 R. C. L. 866. It does not provide for an apportionment of assets when there is no indebtedness. Com'rs. of Laramie County v. Com'rs. of Albany County, 92 U.S 307, affirming 1 Wyo. 137. The order of the trial court approving the proceedings of the agreement between districts numbered 21 and 14 was void. There are three limitations in the present law. (1) Payment is only for school teachers and other necessary school expenses. (2) The payment extends only until the new district receives its proper apportionment of school moneys and taxes. (3) Payment is made only from the treasury of the old district to the new district. The amendment of 1921 was not in itself a limitation. District 14 received $ 1,166.08 more than it was entitled to receive under Section 99-310. It was received by mistake or fraud. A new district does not have pupils, teachers and bus drivers until it has been in existence a year or the greater part of a year. Sec. 78-405, R. S. District 21 had no power to incur indebtedness under agreement with District 14. The power of school boards is defined by Section 99-923, R. S. 1931. School Dist. No. 3 v. Western Tube Co., (Wyo.) 38 P 924. School districts are quasi municipal corporations of the most limited power known to the law. School District v. City of Pasadena, (Cal.) 134 P. 985; Denman v. Webster, (Calif.) 79 P. 139; Baxter v. Davis, (Ariz.) 112 P. 410; School Directors v. Wright, 43 Ill.App. 270, 24 R. C. L. 564. In the division, District 14 took 72% of the assessable property of the old district, but only 3% of its seven schools. The agreement was null and void. The parent district receives the money and passes it along to the new district during the first year of its existence. Sec. 99-309, R. S. 1931. In addition, of course, is the property tax. The judgment of the trial court should be reversed and appellant should be awarded judgment for the excess of school moneys received by District 14 belonging to District 21.

For the respondent, the cause was submitted upon the brief of F. B. Sheldon, Jr. of Riverton.

The assets and financial standing of School District 21 at the time of division are not in dispute in this case. That question was settled at the time Districts 21 and 14 met and made an agreement as to what should be received by the new district. The primary questions submitted in this case are: (1) Is a new district established out of an old district entitled to any portion of the assets of the original district? (2) If so, upon what basis shall the apportionment be made? The law answers the first question in the affirmative. Sections 99-309, 310 and 901, R. S. 1931. School District No. 3 v. School District No. 2, 29 Wyo. 80; District No. 7 v. District No. 1, 33 Wyo. 65. The word "credit" as used in Section 99-901 means assets. Town v. Directors, (Wisc.) 51 N.W. 871. The agreement made between the districts was submitted to the trial court and held to be fairly and honestly entered into between the districts. The plaintiff is not complaining as to the manner of payment. It is true that Section 99-309, R. S., directs that the funds be retained by the original district and drawn on by the new district. It is true that the contract deviates from the mode prescribed by statute, but that does not invalidate the agreement. 56 C. J. 272, Section 116. Plaintiff district is entitled to its proper apportionment of the money and taxes on hand and due to the original district No. 21, at the time of division, Sec. 99-309, R. S. 1931; such division to be made on an equitable basis. School District No. 3 v. School District No. 2, 29 Wyo. 80. The apportionment should be made on the basis of assessed valuations by the board of the old district, subject to objections by the board of the new district. The agreement of October 23, 1932, constituted a determination of all questions concerning apportionment. In fact, plaintiff is receiving less than its equitable apportionment of the money of the old district. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum provided for in the contract.

BLUME, Chief Justice. RINER and KIMBALL, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BLUME, Chief Justice.

School District No. 14 in the County of Fremont was established on June 8, 1932. Its territory previously was part of School District No. 21, except that a small portion was taken from School District No. 38. In the fall of 1932, some of the expenses of the new district were paid by School District No. 21. The directors of the new district, however, believed it best that the funds expected at that time from the general county taxes and from the state should be divided immediately. They also believed it best that whatever apportionment of property and credits the law provided should be made at that time. This also was the opinion of the county superintendent of schools of Fremont County. She accordingly called in the directors of both districts and caused them to enter into an agreement, on October 23, 1932. That agreement, omitting the signatures, is as follows:

"Lander, Wyoming October 23, 1932.

This agreement, entered into the 23rd day of October, 1932, between the boards of trustees of School Districts No. 21 and 14, respectively, witnesseth:

Whereas the joint property of Districts No. 21 and 14 before division has a total valuation of $ 8728.09 as evidenced by the attached statement, which is hereby accepted as correct by both parties for purposes of division, and

Whereas district No. 21 has about 28% and district No. 14 has about 72% of the assessed valuation of the combined districts; and

Whereas the trustees of both districts are desirous of arriving at a mutual agreement without recourse to expensive and annoying litigation and after full and free conference, they have agreed as follows:

District No. 21 agrees to pay, and district No. 14 agrees to accept as full settlement the sum of $ 1307.25 to be paid as follows: $ 425.00 on or before April 1st, 1933; $ 425.00 on or before April 1st, 1934; and $ 457.25 on or before April 1st, 1935.

And it is further agreed that both parties shall enter this agreement upon the minutes of their districts as a part thereof.

It is further agreed that this agreement if and when ratified by the Honorable Judge of the District Court of Fremont County, shall forever bar either party from instituting or prosecuting any suit at law based upon the division of property as herein agreed upon.

In view of the above, all parties pray the Honorable Court to ratify this agreement."

The statement of assets attached to the agreement showed that at that time there were in School District No. 21 seven schools, valued at the sum of $ 6800; cash on hand $ 1365.63; a bus, valued at $ 250, unexpired premium insurance, $ 310.46, making a total of assets of School District No. 21, before the division, of $ 8726.09. Three of the schools were located in District No. 14, valued at $ 3300, which was subtracted from the total. The taxable property of School District No. 21, after the division, was stated at $ 184,864.06. The taxable property of School District No. 14, after the division, was stated as $ 481,166.28. In other words, the assessed valuation of School District No. 14 was approximately 72%, and the assessed valuation of No. 21 (after the division) was approximately 28% of the combined assessed valuation of the two districts. While it does not appear from the record just exactly how the sum of $ 1307.75, mentioned in the agreement, was arrived at, it was approximately 72% of the public property, including credits, of District No. 21 at the time of the division, after giving it credit for the three school houses located in District No. 14. The agreement above mentioned was filed in the district court of Fremont County, and confirmed ex parte.

District No. 21 refused to pay as it had agreed, and this action was brought to compel it to do so. The district court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $ 1748, and from this judgment the defendant has appealed.

1. Appellant claims that the agreement in this case, upon which suit was brought, was not authorized by statute and is therefore void. Counsel for the respondent argues that the legislature has, in the case of a division of a school district, provided for an apportionment of the indebtedness according to the assessed valuations in the respective districts and that, accordingly, this "yard-stick" should be used also in dividing the property and the money on hand at the time of the division. It is however, stated in 56 C. J. 269 as follows:

"In the absence of an applicable statutory provision to the contrary, it is a general rule that when a school district or other local school organization is divided or a part is detached, the territory
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State ex rel. Eaton v. Hirst, 2047
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 25 Mayo 1938
    ... ... 163 STATE EX REL. EATON v. HIRST, COUNTY TREASURER (OMAHA NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., ... 51; State ... ex rel. Irvine v. Brooks, 14 Wyo. 393. The Wyoming ... statutes relating to ... Gale v. School ... District, 49 Wyo. 384; District No. 14 v ... 23, 1913 (38 State. L. 271, c. 6, # 21); U. S. Code, Title ... 12, Sec. 484; Sec. 248 ... ...
  • Appeal of Sanders
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 17 Febrero 1958
    ...authority is doubtful, such authority should not be exercised by it.' See also School Dist. No. 14 in Fremont County v. School Dist. No. 21 in Fremont County, 51 Wyo. 370, 67 P.2d 192, 195, 71 P.2d 137. No express power is given by § 67-701 to form a high school district and we do not think......
  • School Dist. No. 14 in Fremont County v. School Dist. No. 21 in Fremont County
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 31 Agosto 1937
    ...Order directing dismissal vacated and judgment below reversed and cause remanded for new trial with directions. For former opinion, see 67 P.2d 192. A. Maxwell, of Lander, for appellant. F. B. Sheldon, Jr., of Riverton, for respondent. BLUME, Chief Justice. A petition for rehearing has been......
  • In re Baker's Estate
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 1937
    ... ... from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; George Tazwell, Judge ... possession of apartment No. 14 since the death of his wife, ... August 23, ... findings, we ascertain a value of $938.21 for the curtesy ... right instead of ... ...

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