Board of Education of City of Wichita v. Barrett

• Decision Date: 20 October 1917
• Docket Number: 21618
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF WICHITA v. BARRETT, COUNTY CLERK.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

167 P. 1068

101 Kan. 568

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF WICHITA v. BARRETT, COUNTY CLERK.

No. 21618

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 20, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the territorial limits of a city school district are enlarged under authority of section 9114 of the General Statutes of 1915, the situs for taxation of all property in the territory annexed is changed forthwith to the city school district; and if the matter is brought to the attention of the county clerk in sufficient time before November 1st to correct the levies and to extend the proper city school district levies upon the property within the annexed territory, he is authorized and required by section 1 of chapter 321 of the Laws of 1917 to make such correction, and to extend the proper levies on the tax roll.

Mandamus by the Board of Education of the City of Wichita against H. M. Barrett, as County Clerk of Sedgwick County Kansas. Writ allowed.

Dale Amidon & Buckland, of Wichita, for plaintiff.

Ross McCormick, Kos Harris, and V. Harris, all of Wichita, for defendant.

OPINION

DAWSON, J.

The board of education of the city of Wichita invokes this court’s original jurisdiction in mandamus to require the county clerk of Sedgwick county to extend upon the tax rolls the school tax levy made by the plaintiff board upon all the property situated in and upon a certain tract of land adjacent to the city of Wichita, which was attached to the city school district on July 2, 1917. Prior to that date the territory and property sought to be subjected to the plaintiff’s school tax levy had been part of rural school district No. 63 of Sedgwick county. The change and extension of the city’s school district boundaries were made under the provisions of section 9114 of the General Statutes of 1915, authorizing the attachment of territory adjacent to a city of the first class for school purposes only. The board of education made and certified to the county clerk its regular school tax levy for the ensuing year, and either then or shortly afterwards it notified the defendant county clerk of the change and extension of the city school district boundaries, and advised the defendant as to the personal property which would be affected by the transfer of the territory from school district No. 63 to the city school district.

The defendant’s excuses for his refusal to extend the levy are somewhat plausible, but lack substantial merit. That the property was assessed as part of the taxable assets of school district No. 63 on the 1st day of March is of no consequence here. The assessment only determined the value of the property on that date. Nor is it controlling that the rural school district’s financial requirements were determined and certified in May, nor that the board of county commissioners made the levy for school district No. 63 on August 6th. While it seems to be the ordinary rule that the changes in the boundaries of a taxing district must be completed before the levy for the ensuing year is made (Railway Co. v. School District, 75 Kan. 843, 89 P. 1018; 35 Cyc. 1035), yet here the change of boundaries was effected on July 2d, while the various taxing districts and official boards had until August 25th to certify their levies to the county clerk. Gen. Stat. 1915, § 11345. Moreover, the statute under which the annexation was made is imperative, and operates as soon as the annexation is effected. It does not permit a postponement of its operation until another fiscal or taxing year. The statute reads:

"Territory outside the city limits of any city of the first class, but adjacent thereto, may be attached to such city for school purposes, ....and...