Butler v. Chariton Cnty. Court

• Decision Date: 31 January 1850
• Citation: 13 Mo. 112
• Parties: BUTLER, RELATOR, v. CHARITON COUNTY COURT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

13 Mo. 112

BUTLER, RELATOR,

v.CHARITON COUNTY COURT.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1850.

ERROR TO CHARITON CIRCUIT COURT.

DAVIS, for Plaintiff. The only question presented by the record is, as to the power of the General Assembly of Missouri to pass the laws for the relief of William Holland. See Session acts of 1846-7, p. 304. It is insisted for the plaintiff, that the attempt to pass the law by the Legislature, was an attempt to exercise judicial power, which, by our Constitution, is confided to the courts. See the Constitution of Missouri, article 2nd; 1st section of article 3rd; 1st section of article 4th; and 1st section of article 5th. The power of canceling a contract, is a power in our State expressly given and confided to the judicial department of the government, for causes shown, which according to the rules and usages of courts of chancery, will authorize it. By whatever name the Legislature may call their action in behalf of William Holland, it is the exercise of judicial power; it is a decree, canceling the contract of a party without his being present to be heard, and cannot have the force of a law. See 16 Mass. R. 270; 15 Mass. R. 454; 8 Wheat. 84.

The title to the sixteenth sections of land in each township in Missouri, was vested in the State, to and for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of each of said townships, for the use of schools, by the act of Congress of the 6th of March, 1830, entitled “An act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State government,” &c. See Land Laws, U. S., 767. The State of Missouri never owned the township school lands, except as a trustee for the benefit of the inhabitants; and although she may do many things as such trustee, it is conceived she has no power to make a voluntary gift of said lands, or of the funds which arise from the sale of them.

For all purposes in this proceeding, the sale of the land by the State to Holland, is to be considered regular, and within the scope of her authority as such trustee; but having sold the land at public sale to a private individual, in order to promote the objects of the grant, by the general government, can she, by a special act of the Legislature, dispossess the purchaser, Holland, against his will and repay his money which she takes from the trustees of the township school funds, without impairing the obligation of a contract? See 17th section of the 13th article of the Constitution of Missouri; 3 Story's Com. Con. §§ 1379, 1385; 1 Kent's Com. lecture 19, pp. 413, 417.

The 1st section of the 6th article of the Constitution of Missouri, amongst other things requires “that the General Assembly shall take measures to preserve from waste or damage, such lands as have been or may hereafter be granted by the United States, for the use of schools within each township in this State; and shall apply the funds which may arise from such lands, in strict conformity to the object of the grant. One school or more shall be established in each township as soon as practicable, where the poor shall be taught gratis.” The General Assembly had power to sell, as this court has more than once decided (8 Mo. R. 475, Payne and Riggin v. St. Louis County): and in this case eight years after the sale, upon the petition of the purchaser, and after he may have stripped the land of its fine timbers, its only valuable quality, this relief law is passed

It is contended that the civil or congressional townships, as organized by the act of the Generrl Assembly for school purposes, are not public corporations, created for the mere and only purpose of the administration of the government; for although education is enjoined as one of the concerns of government, and the case of the General Assembly is enjoined for the promotion of the schools: and fines and forfeitures are appropriated by the State for the same object; yet the principal fund is not from the bounty of the State. The inhabitant of the township has a vested interest in those funds, votes his annual tax, helps to rear the school-houses, and this relation is to be perpetual. See Rev. Statutes of 1835, title Schools and School Lands; Story's Com. on Con., § 1387. This Court has heretofore put salutary checks upon trivial objections to the payment of the purchase-money, for school lands. See Bogart v. Caldwell County, 9 Mo. R. 359. As to this mode of proceeding on mandamus, then demurring and afterwards a writ of error, see 16 Johns. R. 61.

CLARK & ABELL, for Defendant. 1. A proceeding by mandamus, is a remedy to compel an inferior court having jurisdiction of the subject matter to act in the premises, but not to correct the judgment of such inferior court after it has acted. 2 Bibb. 574; 10 Pick., 244. 2. The County Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction in reference to the government of all school lands in the several school districts in the respective counties, and the sole control of the township school fund, and by the school law, have discretionary power to collect the same, or not as may be deemed best by the court, which will be seen by reference to the school law. The County Court having such power, the Circuit Court has no right to interfere, by mandamus, to control or govern that discretion. School Law, art. 2, §§ 9, 17, 18; Ex-parteBassett, 2 Cowen, 458; Gray v. Bridge, 11 Pick. 189; 11 Mo R. 679. 3. It appears by the answer in this case, which is admitted to be true by the demurrer, that no application was ever made to the County Court, by any authorized representative of the school district, to have the bonds collected, and the County Court could not be regarded as neglecting its duty, in any view of the case, until a proper application was made by a proper person, and until it appeared clearly, that the money would be lost, unless such application was complied with. 4. The County Court, in this case, however, acted in strict compliance with the laws of the State then in force. The Legislature had the power to order the contract rescinded, and no one but the purchaser had a right to complain. The school lands were granted to the State, for the use of the inhabitants of each township for the use of schools. The people are sovereign and have the right, through their agents, to manage and control these lands, in that manner deemed by them best calculated to preserve the use of the lands or their proceeds to the inhabitants, according to the terms of the grant. In this case, a contract had been entered into for the sale of this land, but the purchase-money not being paid, and the title not yet conveyed by the State having the same, her Legislature, by the consent of the purchaser, rescinds the contract, surrenders up the bonds for the...