Board of Education of City of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 30 March 1916
• Citation: 184 S.W. 975,267 Mo. 356
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

184 S.W. 975

267 Mo. 356

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

March 30, 1916

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. Hugo Grimm Judge.

Affirmed.

William E. Baird for appellants.

(1) The Board of Education is a public corporation formed for a special and limited purpose; its charter is found in the statutes, which must be construed by the same rules as are applied to other statutes. Heller v. Stremmel, 52 Mo. 311; State v. Lockett, 54 Mo.App. 202; Peers v. Board, 72 Ill. 508; Smith v. Proctor, 130 N.Y. 319; McQuillin, Mun. Corp., sec. 114. (2) The property controlled by the board is not owned by the State or used for governmental purposes; the presumption that the sovereign or the State is not bound by local regulations cannot be indulged. Kansas City v. Fee, 174 Mo.App. 510; School Dist. v. Pasadena, 166 Cal. 7; Public Schools v. St. Louis, 26 Mo. 468; Bank v State, 69 Iowa 30; Sioux City v. School Dist., 55 Iowa 150; City, Trustee, v. Chicago, 207 Ill. 37; Board v. People, 219 Ill. 87. (3) The city of St Louis, by its charter, had and still has plenary power over sewers, drains, sanitation and other local subjects of regulation. Ex parte Smith, 231 Mo. 111; Gunning Co. v. St. Louis, 235 Mo. 99. (4) No such power has been given the Board of Education; a modification of the city charter will not be implied in the law creating the board. R. S. 1909, secs. 11030-11062; Dillon, Mun. Corp. (5 Ed.), sec. 235; State ex rel. v. Severance, 55 Mo. 386; Wills v. Railroad, 133 Mo.App. 625; E. St. Louis v. Maxwell, 99 Ill. 443; Wood v. Comrs., 58 Cal. 563; State v. Williams, 80 Tenn. 251.

Robert Burkham for respondent.

(1) Education is a governmental function. Article 11, Missouri Constitution; Lehew v. Brummell, 103 Mo. 550; Heller v. Stremmel, 52 Mo. 309; State ex rel. v. St. Louis School Board, 112 Mo. 213. The members of the Board of Education of the city of St. Louis are officers under the State and exercise functions of government. State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 104 Mo. 619; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 231 Mo. 547; Secs. 11030-11062, R. S. 1909. The Board of Education is a public corporation separate and distinct from and entirely independent of the municipality of St. Louis. Waterworks Co. v. School Districts, 23 Mo.App. 241; State ex rel. v. Tracy, 94 Mo. 221; School District No. 7 v. School District of St. Joseph, 184 Mo. 156. (2) School buildings being maintained by the State in the exercise of a governmental function, the presumption arises, at least so far as their internal construction is concerned, that they are not subject to municipal regulation or control. (a) The general principle: Bank v. United States, 86 U.S. 227; 26 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 644; 36 Cyc. 1171. (b) The application of the principle to local governmental subdivisions: Cole v. White Co., 32 Ark. 43; Whitehead v. Board of Education, 139 Mich. 490; Cincinnati v. Volk, 72 Ohio St. 469. (c) The application of the principle to local building regulations. Institution v. Louisville, 123 Ky. 767; Milwaukee v. McGregor, 140 Wis. 35. (3) Regardless of any presumption of independence from municipal control arising from the fact that school buildings are maintained by the State and controlled by State officers, existing legislation clearly indicates that the Board of Education of the city of St. Louis is intrusted with the power to determine what kind of interior plumbing in school buildings is best adapted for its purposes. Charter of the Board of Education of City of St. Louis, Secs. 11030 to 11062, R. S. 1909.

BROWN, C. Railey, C., concurs.

OPINION

BROWN, C. --

This suit was instituted April 11, 1912, against the defendant city and Stephen H. Gilmore, its supervisor of plumbing, to obtain an injunction restraining them from interfering with work in course of construction under contract for a new school building in said city to be known as the Horace Mann School. The contract provided for a system of vents from the water-closets known as "a continuous venting system, doing away with all local vents to the fixtures," while a regulation of the Board of Public Improvements of the city of St. Louis provided for a different system, requiring "sewer, soil, waste, and ventilation pipes to be arranged and constructed to admit of a free circulation of air from the fresh air inlet to each fixture trap and through the roof." The petition charged that the defendants threatened to apply the ordinances and rules of the city, which are fully set out, to this work, and cause the arrest of any and all of plaintiff's agents, servants, or employees who may go upon the premises under plaintiff's direction to prosecute said plumbing work, on the charge of violating said ordinances, rules and regulations. There is no question raised as to reasonableness of the ordinances of the city or regulations of its Board of Public Improvements, nor as to whether either system of venting is superior to the other, but the case is presented and discussed upon the broad proposition as to whether or not the Board of Education, in this particular, is subject to the ordinances and regulations of the city in this respect. A general demurrer to the petition was overruled, and defendants declining to further plead, final judgment was rendered granting the injunction and the case is here upon the defendants' appeal.

Section 26 of article 3 of the charter then in force provided, among other things, that the mayor and assembly shall have power, within the city, by ordinance not inconsistent with the Constitution or any law of this State or of this charter, to do the following things: In clause two, to construct and keep in repair all bridges, streets, sewers and drains, and to regulate the use thereof; in clause twelve, to provide for the safe construction, inspection and repairs of all private and public buildings within the city; and in clause fourteen, to pass all ordinances not inconsistent with the provisions of the charter or the laws of the State as may be expedient in regard to the peace, good government, health and welfare of the city.

It also provides (Sec. 3, art. 4) for a board of public improvements to consist of an elective president and five commissioners with certain prescribed powers, and adds the following provision: Section 42: "The municipal assembly shall provide by ordinance such additional duties of and requirements from the board of public improvements and its several members, as it may deem necessary, and for the appointment by them of such assistants and employees as the demands of the several departments may require."

It was under these powers and ordinances passed in pursuance of them that the defendant superintendent of plumbing was appointed and the rule relating to the ventilation of water-closets, which the city is now attempting to apply to the Horace Mann School, was made.

When the framers of the present Constitution conferred upon the freeholders of the city the power to make their present charter they provided, with the most careful foresight (Sec. 23, art. 9) that "such charter and amendments shall always be in harmony with and subject to the Constitution and laws of Missouri, except only that provision may be made for the graduation of the rate of taxation for city purposes in the portions of the city which are added thereto by the proposed enlargement of its boundaries."

In the same Constitution, and in pursuance of the uniform policy of the State from the beginning, it was provided (Sec. 1, art. 11) that "a general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the General Assembly" (not the freeholders of the city of St. Louis) "shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this State between the ages of six and twenty years." It was in obedience to this constitutional mandate that the Act of 1897 (as amended by the Act of May 28, 1909) under which the public schools of the city of St. Louis have ever since been operated was enacted. It provided that "every city in this State now having or which may hereafter have five hundred thousand inhabitants or over, together with the territory now within its limits, or which may in the future be included by any change thereof, shall be and constitute a single school district, shall be a body corporate, and the supervision and government of public schools and public school property therein shall be vested in a board of twelve members, to be called and known as the 'Board of Education of . . .'" [R. S. 1909, sec. 11030.]

The powers and duties of this board were highly specialized in the act, and included the general and supervising control governing and management of the public schools,...