Carpenter v. Independent Dist. No. 5 of Columbia Tp.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1895
• Citation: 95 Iowa 300,63 N.W. 708
• Parties: CARPENTER ET AL. v. INDEPENDENT DISTRICT NO. 5 OF COLUMBIA TP., TAMA COUNTY, ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

95 Iowa 300

63 N.W. 708

CARPENTER ET AL.

v.INDEPENDENT DISTRICT NO. 5 OF COLUMBIA TP., TAMA COUNTY, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 31, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Tama county; J. R. Caldwell, Judge.

Action of mandamus to compel the relocation of a schoolhouse site. A demurrer to the answer was filed but overruled, the plaintiffs elected to stand on their demurrer, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.W. H. Stivers and O. H. Mills, for appellants.

C. B. Bradshaw, for appellees.

ROBINSON, J.

The defendants are the independent district No. 5, in Columbia township, in Tama county, Iowa, and three persons who are duly acting as its directors. The plaintiffs are resident taxpayers of the district, and patrons of its school. The facts set out in the pleadings and admitted by the demurrer are substantially as follows: In March, 1891, the plaintiffs presented to the board of directors of the district a petition asking that the site of the schoolhouse be changed to a point designated as “at the center of the original district,” and the petition was, in effect, granted on the 10th day of August, 1891. An appeal from the order was taken to the county superintendent, who, after a full hearing of the case, reversed the action of the board. An appeal was taken from this decision to the superintendent of public instruction, and was heard by him, all the parties appearing. On the 29th of February, 1892, he rendered a decision reversing that of the county superintendent, and affirming that of the board of directors in relocating the schoolhouse site. In June, 1892, the plaintiffs served upon the defendants a request in writing that they carry into effect the decision of the superintendent of public instruction, but they refused to do so. The ground of their refusal is that, on the 21st day of March, 1892, the board of directors took action, shown by a copy of its proceedings, as follows: “H. D. Cory presented the following resolution: ‘Whereas, that at a special meeting of the school board of No. 5, Columbia, held August 10, 1891, it was voted to remove the schoolhouse of said independent district from the present location to a new site, not then determined; and whereas, such removal was against the express wishes of a majority of the legal voters and the best interest of a majority of the patrons of said independent district: Therefore be it resolved, that said action be reconsidered, and that the present board of directors relocate said schoolhouse at its present site. Yea, Cory and Smith; Nay, _____.’ ” The appellants claim that the decision of the superintendent of public instruction was final, while the appellees claim that, as he merely affirmed the decision of the board of directors, that body had the discretionary power to change or rescind its action, and that its rescission cannot be reviewed excepting by appeal to the county superintendent, and that no abuse of the discretion lodged in the board is shown.

Section 1724 of the Code refers to the powers of boards of directors, and contains the following: “They shall fix the site for each school house, taking into consideration the geographical position, and convenience of the people of each portion of the subdistrict * * * .” This has been held to authorize the board to change the site of a schoolhouse which has been fixed. Vance v. District Tp. of Wilton, 23 Iowa, 408. The theory of the resolution adopted by the board appears to have...