Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. Byron School Dist. No. 1,

• Decision Date: 01 November 1927
• Docket Number: 1431
• Parties: CHICAGO B. & Q. R. CO. v. BYRON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, ET AL. [*]
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

260 P. 537

37 Wyo. 259

CHICAGO B. & Q. R. CO. v. BYRON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, ET AL. ^[*]

No. 1431

Supreme Court of Wyoming

November 1, 1927

ERROR to District Court, Big Horn County; VOLNEY J. TIDBALL, Judge.

Proceeding by the District Boundary Board of Big Horn County to redistrict a school district. From action of the board in redistricting Byron School District No. 1, in Big Horn County, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company appealed to the district court, and the Ingleside Limestone Company intervened. From a judgment affirming action of the District Boundary Board, the Railroad Company brings error.

Affirmed.

H. C Brome and C. A. Zaring and Nichols & Stirrett, for plaintiff in error.

The formation of school districts is a legislative function not subject to control by courts, unless so arbitrary and unreasonable as to constitute taking of property without due process of law. Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U.S. 78; Comm'rs. v. Comm'r., 92 U.S. 307; Mills Co. v. Board, 239 U.S. 477. There is the right to appeal, 2228 C. S.; Dist. v. Board, (Minn.) 194 N.W 8. Financial necessities of one district do not justify change of boundary. Dist. v. Dist., (Mo.) 235 S.W 470; Houck v. Dist., 239 U.S. 240. The discretion of boundary boards may be questioned where it is shown that their action was arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable. Dist. v. Dist., (Mo.) 235 S.W. 470; Board v. Brunton, 217 S.W. 709.

L. A. Bowman, Ray E. Lee and Samuel M. Lee, for defendant in error.

The Constitution empowers the legislature to provide a public school system to meet the needs of children of school age. Art. VII, Secs. 1, 9; ch. 133, L. 1921 and Sec. 2228 C. S. (as amended by ch. 133, L. 1921) provide for a boundary board; none of the districts affected have objected to the proceedings; the taxation of property for schools is not a taking without process of law; Warner v. Galveston, 72 Tex. 92; Shepardson v. Gillett, 133 Ind. 125; Cooley, Taxation (3rd ed.) 476; Benjiman v. Malaka, 50 Ia. 648. We do not believe the appeal statute applies in this case, unless Section 2228 should be so construed, but it should be limited to residents of districts affected; legislatures have authority to create, abolish or alter school districts, Atty. Gen. v. Lowrey, 199 U.S. 223; Minsinger v. Rau, 84 A. 902; Kimball v. City, 57 P. 1; 35 Cyc. 835; State v. Urton, 248 P. 369. The action of the board was not arbitrary and there is no claim of fraud. 4 C. J. 1476; 28 Cyc. 1122. The board had power to make the change, Covington v. Ky., 173 U.S. 231; Town Dist. v. Dist., 48 A. 697. Plaintiff in error has no legal ground for complaint; Withnell v. Co., 249 U.S. 863; Thompson v. Ky., 209 U.S. 340; Miller v. Dist., 256 U.S. 129; Chicago, etc. Co. v. Kendall, 266 U.S. 94. The school districts affected were not made parties, hence there was lack of jurisdiction in the court to make the order. Pioneer Co. v. Akin, 27 Wyo. 88; Johnston v. Co., 4 Wyo. 164. If the board acted in good faith and for the benefit of the greatest number of people, its action cannot be disturbed, even though it results in hardship to some person. Walls v. Co., 254 U.S. 300. The original papers and bill of exceptions were not indexed as required by the rules and for that reason are not entitled to consideration.

BLUME, Chief Justice. POTTER, J., and KIMBALL, J., concur.

OPINION

BLUME, Chief Justice.

School District No. 1 in Big Horn County, Wyoming, is the Byron School District. In the early part of March, 1925, its only school building, located at Byron, was destroyed by fire. Bonds of the district had been issued just previous to the fire in the sum of $ 10,000, for the purpose of enlarging its school building and to provide for the establishment of a high school in connection therewith. At the time of the fire, $ 7,000 of this money had been expended, leaving $ 3,000 on hand. The district received $ 16,000 fire insurance, making a total sum of $ 19,000 on hand after the fire. School was thereupon temporarily conducted in a Mormon meeting house. But it was found to be impossible to continue in that manner, and the school trustees of the district called upon the Commissioner of Education of this state to aid them in devising ways and means to remedy the situation. Upon investigation, it was found that a new building sufficient for the needs of the district would cost about $ 50,000, and that the district had, accordingly, insufficient money to construct such building; that it was already bonded in the total amount of $ 19,900, and that the value of the then taxable property therein was insufficient to allow it to be bonded for an amount so as to erect a building as above mentioned. The Commissioner of Education recommended that, if possible, additional territory should be annexed to the district, so that the taxable property therein might be increased to the proper amount. The school trustees of the school district thereupon petitioned the District Boundary Board of Big Horn County, consisting, under the statute, of the county superintendent, county treasurer, and the board of county commissioners, to redistrict the county so as to give proper relief to District No. 1. This district originally extended to the line bounded by the state of Montana, and it apparently had also, formerly, embraced the lands later included in Districts Nos. 3 and 5. In March, 1925, it was composed of a territory nearly, but not quite, rectangular, 17 miles long, north and south, by 6 miles wide, east and west. It was surrounded at that time by Districts Nos. 3, 28 and 30, but the bonded indebtedness of these districts and the needs thereof were such that no territory containing assessable property could be taken from either of these districts without detriment. The district immediately east of District No. 1 was District No. 3; immediately east of the latter district was District No. 5, the most westerly line of the latter being 9 miles distant from the east line of District No. 1. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad ran northerly through District No. 5, and was at that place about 17 miles distant from the east line of School District No. 1. The school population of District No. 1, at that time, was 244, with 195 attending school. The school population of District No. 5 was 20, with 15 attending school; 8 of these children being in that portion of the district subsequently annexed to the Byron School District, with 5 of them attending school--this school being located at or near the railroad station of Spence. The assessed valuation of School District No. 1 in 1924 was $ 680,337; the assessed valuation of District No. 5 during that year was $ 602,576. There was no high school in District No. 5, the children of high school age attending at Greybull, about ten miles distant; where, however, tuition was required to be paid and where it was necessary to send the children to room and board. The distance from Spence to Byron is 34 miles by wagon road, 29 miles by railroad to Lovell and then about 10 miles by wagon road from Lovell to Byron. The tax levy in District No. 5 was, in 1925, 5.52 mills, and in District No. 1 about 15.4 mills. Pursuant to the petition of the school trustees of Byron School District, the District Boundary Board met on March 28, 1925. The Commissioner of Education was present and recommended that relief be given as prayed. The boundary board, knowing that such relief could be given in no other way, proposed to annex to District No. 1 a strip of land 24 miles long, east and west, by four miles wide, north and south, situated directly west of the southern four miles of District No. 1, this strip being a portion of School Districts Nos. 3 and 5; all the taxable property, however, being situated in that part which then belonged to District No. 5. The meeting of the board was then adjourned to April 6, 1925, for the purpose of giving notice to the parties interested so they might appear and state their objections. The board met again on that date. No objections were made to the proposed change except by the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, and it seems by one man from District No. 5, but the Ingleside Limestone Company subsequently joined the railroad company in its objections. The board, after considering the situation, ordered the proposed change. A school, located at the station of Spence, in District No. 5, was affected by the action of the board, but it was made a condition of the change of boundaries that this school should be "standardized" upon becoming a part of District No. 1. All the taxable property transferred by the change of boundaries to District No. 1 was, as heretofore stated, located in the former District No. 5, and consisted of four miles of railroad assessed at $ 170,319, property of the Ingleside Limestone Company assessed at $ 12,789, and property of other parties, assessed at $ 1313. This left an assessed valuation of $ 418,155 in District No. 5 and raised the assessed valuation in District No. 1 to $ 864,758. The taxes of the railroad company were, by reason of the difference in the rate of taxation between District No. 1 and District No. 5, increased in the sum of $ 1682.75 during the year 1925, without considering any further increase that might be necessary as a result of the issuance of bonds in the Byron School District. The company appealed from the action of the boundary board to the District Court, in accordance with the provisions of section 2228 of the W. C. S. 1920, as amended by c. 133, Session Laws of 1921, which reads as follows:

"The county superintendent of schools, the County Treasurer, and the board of county commissioners shall constitute a board for laying off their county into convenient school districts such board to be styled 'The ...