Hohl v. Board of Ed. of Poweshiek County, 49668

• Decision Date: 10 February 1959
• Docket Number: No. 49668,49668
• Citation: 250 Iowa 502,94 N.W.2d 787
• Parties: Melvin L. HOHL, Raymond W. McClure, Carroll F. McClain, James H. Van Arkel, Plaintiff-Appellees, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF POWESHIEK COUNTY, Iowa, et al., Defendants, State Department of Public Instruction of the State of Iowa, et al., Defendant-Appellants.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 787

94 N.W.2d 787

250 Iowa 502

Melvin L. HOHL, Raymond W. McClure, Carroll F. McClain, James H. Van Arkel, Plaintiff-Appellees, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF POWESHIEK COUNTY, Iowa, et al., Defendants, State Department of Public Instruction of the State of Iowa, et al., Defendant-Appellants.

No. 49668.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 10, 1959.

Norman A. Erbe, Atty. Gen., and Leonard C. Abels, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellants.

Tomasek & Vogel, Grinnell, for plaintiff-appellees.

LARSON, Justice.

There is but one question raised in this appeal. By failing to grant the right of individuals to appeal from a decision fixing the boundaries of a proposed school district by the State Department of Public Instruction, did the legislature in Chapter 275 of the 1954 Code, I.C.A., deny interested individuals the right to question the legality of such reorganization proceedings by certiorari? The trial court held that it did not, and we agree.

Plaintiffs herein are residents of certain territory involved in this dispute which was referred to as 'all or parts of twenty-four sections of land.' It was alleged in their petition that this territory originally was included in a petition for a proposed Grinnell-Newburg district filed in the office of the County Superintendent of Schools of Poweshiek County, Iowa, on January 21, 1958. It was also alleged the inclusion of that territory in the Grinnell district was properly appealed to the State Department of Public Instruction and when that appeal was dismissed by the Department, that territory remained in the proposed Grinnell district. On January 31, 1958, while the Grinnell reorganization was pending, this same territory was included in a petition for the Brooklyn-Guernsey-Malcom Community School District and was referred to as the 'overlapping territory.' Plaintiffs' petition further alleged that the Grinnell-Newburg district was approved and 'will become effective on July 1, 1958.'

From the record we find that objections were filed in the Brooklyn matter calling attention to the Grinnell proceedings. The joint county boards of education of Poweshiek and Iowa counties thereafter deleted this 'overlapping territory' from the Brooklyn plan. An appeal followed to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction by the Brooklyn Consolidated School District and others. The matter was heard by the State Department of Public Instruction and the 'overlapping territory' was replaced in the Brooklyn-Guernsey-Malcom Community School District reorganization plan.

For convenience, we refer to the two districts as the Grinnell district and the Brooklyn district.

It is plaintiffs' contention that 'the Poweshiek and Iowa County Boards of Education had no jurisdiction of the proposed Brookyn--Guernsey--Malcom Community School District proposal, nor did the Iowa State Board of Public Instruction, the State Department of Public Instruction, or J. C. Wright, Superintendent of Public Instruction, or any of them', to proceed with that reorganization, or to fix boundaries thereof, for the reason that it included territory proposed for inclusion in the pending Grinnell reorganization, citing our decision in State ex rel. Harberts v. Klemme Community School District, 247 Iowa 48, 72 N.W.2d 512. Thus they allege that the Brooklyn proposal was illegal and void and of no force and effect, and that it was in violation of the provisions of Chapter 275, Code of 1954, I.C.A. They further alleged in their petition that the joint county boards of Poweshiek and Iowa counties exceeded their proper jurisdiction in hearing and approving the Brooklyn proposal because the petition was not signed by the required number of voters in Sheridan Rural Independent No. 5 School District, the same being one of the school districts affected by the proposal. Both are jurisdictional defect allegations.

It is defendants' contention that as to these plaintiffs there is no right of review either by appeal or by certiorari even if there was some illegal proceeding in connection with the establishing of the 'overlapping territory' in the Brooklyn district. In other words, they contend that under Chapter 275, Code of 1954, I.C.A., only county boards or other designated bodies may obtain a review in the courts from a decision of the State Department fixing disputed boundaries, and regardless of whether appellants' action was or was not illegal, the issue is whether these individual plaintiffs may maintain an action in certiorari to review the matter. Thus the appellants moved to quash the writ previously granted to plaintiffs by the court and upon its refusal appealed.

I. 'A writ of certiorari shall only be granted when specifically authorized by statute; or where an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, is alleged to have exceeded its, or his proper jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally.' R.C.P. 306, 58 I.C.A. Rule 308, R.C.P., provides further that 'The writ shall not be denied or annulled because plaintiff has another plain, speedy or adequate remedy * * *.'

Acts of approving plans, establishing boundaries, etc. by boards of education are of a quasi-judicial character and, as such, may be the subject of certiorari review in the courts. Anderson v. Hadley, 245 Iowa 550, 63 N.W.2d 234, and many citations. Therefore, unless the plaintiffs as individuals are somehow denied the use of this action, the legality of the proceedings may rightfully be considered by the court and the question of the board's jurisdiction to act can be determined therein.

II. We must here look to the allegations of the plaintiffs' petition to find whether there appear grounds which would result in a decision that the defendants acted illegally and without jurisdiction. The rule is too well settled to need citations that for the purposes of the motion to quash, plaintiffs' allegations must be taken as true.

Jurisdiction to establish the reorganization of the Brooklyn district was challenged. Plaintiffs sought to review two alleged acts of illegality. The first alleged there was an attempt to include territory within this reorganization that was already included in a pending Grinnell district reorganization. This we said in the recent case of State ex rel. Harberts v. Klemme Community School District, supra, 247 Iowa 48, 72 N.W.2d 512, was a serious jurisdictional defect which voided the Klemme proceedings. We find therein at page 54 of 247 Iowa, at page 515 of 72 N.W.2d the following pronouncement: 'We must conclude that until the prior-pending reorganization of the Belmond District was completed or abandoned, the Hancock County Board of Education could acquire no jurisdiction of the territory included in the Belmond petition. Its attempt to so do has resulted in a jurisdictional defect in the Klemme proceedings fatal to its legal existence and voids the election.' We also said therein: 'While acquiring jurisdiction by the county board usually is thought of as requiring only a petition signed by one third of the electors residing within the territory described within that county, section 275.12, and by a duly published notice as required in section 275.14, there is also a further requirement, i. e., that no part of the territory proposed for inclusion be already included in a pending district reorganization. This principle is not new in law, for it is well settled that prior jurisdiction once obtained in any legal proceeding prevents any subsequent effort to interfere with the orderly disposition under the first proceeding.' (Emphasis supplied.)

As a second alleged illegality, plaintiffs contend a sufficient number of signatures was not obtained in one of the school districts affected by the proposal. This also is a jurisdictional attack. Under our holding in Anderson v. Hadley, supra, and the cases cited therein, certiorari was held to be a proper remedy.

Defendants practically concede that unless plaintiffs as individuals are denied the right to use this remedy, they have stated a good cause of action. However, they cite our holdings in Everding v. Board of Education, 247 Iowa 743, 76 N.W.2d 205, and Signer v. Crawford County, Iowa, Board of Education, 247 Iowa 766, 76 N.W.2d 213, as authority for their proposition that as individuals plaintiffs have no right to test in court the action of the State Department of Public Instruction in settling boundary disputes and establishing boundaries in reorganization...