Burnham v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 19 February 1902
• Parties: BURNHAM et al. v. ROGERS, Tax Collector.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

66 S.W. 970

167 Mo. 17

BURNHAM et al. v. ROGERS, Tax Collector.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

February 19, 1902.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — TOWNS — SCHOOL DISTRICTS — ORGANIZATION — COLLATERAL ATTACK — RESTRAINING COLLECTION OF TAX — SCHOOL BOARD — EXCEEDING POWERS — REMEDY — SPECIAL MEETINGS — ELECTION ON QUESTION SUBMITTED — DIVIDING DISTRICT — EFFECT — VOTING — TAXATION — INVALID INCREASED ASSESSMENT — TENDER OF VALID PORTION — NECESSITY.

1. Where a township and a school district have been organized for several years, and are discharging the functions of such corporations, their right to exist and act as such corporations cannot be impeached collaterally in a suit to enjoin the collection of school taxes.

2. Injunction to restrain the collection of a school tax lawfully assessed is not the remedy of a taxpayer for any improper conduct of a school board in the performance of their duties as prescribed by law, or under Rev. St. 1889, § 8088, relating to the division of a district into school wards, etc.

3. The fact that the election on a question submitted at a special school meeting did not begin at 7 o'clock a. m. and close at 6 o'clock p. m., and that a chairman and secretary were elected, and tellers appointed, instead of electing three election judges, as required by Rev. St. 1889, § 8096, prescribing the mode of holding elections at the annual school meetings, does not invalidate such election, since the statute applies to the annual meetings only.

4. Under Rev. St. 1889, § 8088, a school board may divide the district into school wards, and erect suitable school buildings therein. Held, that the action of a school board in so dividing a district and providing for the erection of a school house in one of the wards was not equivalent to creating a separate district of such ward, so that taxpayers in the other ward had no right to vote and were not liable to taxation therein.

5. Since a school board had authority to make a regular assessment of a certain sum on each $100, and, under Rev. St. 1889, §§ 7982, 7986, 7987, the power to assess an additional tax to pay the interest on bonds and create a sinking fund, a taxpayer who, after an opportunity to do so, has failed to tender or make offer to pay the valid tax, cannot enjoin the collection of an increased assessment claimed to have been made without notice and a vote thereon as required by law.

Appeal from circuit court, Bates county; C. A. Denton, Special Judge.

Suit by J. H. Burnham and others against John H. Rogers, tax collector. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This is a suit in equity to enjoin the collection of certain school taxes in Amoret school district, in Bates county; the plaintiffs owning property in the district assessed for such taxes in 1897, and the defendant being township tax collector. The petition goes back to the organization of the town of Amoret, and makes statements tending to show that the town was not lawfully organized. Then it takes up the Amoret school district, organized in 1892, and makes statements designed to show that its organization was not legal. It then states, in effect: That upon the organization in May, 1892, the board of directors of the Amoret school district held a meeting, and determined that more than one school house was required in the district, and divided the district into two wards, by a line running north and south, and decided to build a school house on the east of the line, on lots designated. The plaintiffs live and their property lies west of that line. That at the time there was a good school house west of the line, but the directors afterwards sold it, and since then there has been no school house west of the line, although that part has ever since been treated by the directors as a part of the school district for purposes of taxation, and such taxes have every year been paid by plaintiffs up to the year 1897. That pursuant to the resolution of the board of directors in May, 1892, dividing the district into two wards, and looking to the building of a school house east of the dividing line, an election was held in the district on the proposition to issue bonds and borrow $2,000 thereon, to be used in building and furnishing the contemplated school house, at which election the proposition was declared carried, and the bonds were duly issued. The petition avers that that election and the bonds issued in pursuance of it were void, for three reasons: First, it "should have been held beginning at 7 o'clock a. m., and closing at 6 p. m., of said day, and the board should have elected three judges of election, etc., as required by section 8096, Rev. St. Mo. 1889, instead as was done, by electing a chairman and secretary and appointing tellers; second, said proposition was not carried by two-thirds of the votes cast by persons who were legal voters at the time; third, none but the legal voters residing east of said division line dividing said school district No. 4 had any right to vote at said election, voting on the question of said loan, when in fact said proposition was submitted indiscriminately to all the voters of said school district No. 4." Coming down to the assessment of 1897 complained of, the petition avers that notice that a proposition to increase the rate of taxation would be made at the annual school meeting was not given, and that such a proposition was not voted upon, but that the board of directors,...