Consol. Indep. Sch. Corp. of St. Anthony v. Shutt
| Decision Date | 27 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 36060.,36060. |
| Citation | 199 Iowa 111,201 N.W. 335 |
| Parties | CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL CORPORATION OF ST. ANTHONY, MARSHALL COUNTY, v. SHUTT, COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF MARSHALL COUNTY (RURAL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 4 OF LIBERTY TP., MARSHALL COUNTY ET AL., INTERVENERS). |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; B. F. Cummings, Judge.
Appeal from the judgment of the district court dismissing certiorari proceedings instituted by appellant against the superintendent of schools. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.C. H. Van Law, of Marshalltown, for appellant.
A. B. Hoover, of Marshalltown, and Fred E. Hansen, of Nevada, Iowa, for appellees.
By the certiorari proceedings appellant challenged the authority of the county superintendent of schools of Marshall county to hear certain questions purporting to have been raised by appeal to the county superintendent of schools from the action of the board of directors with regard to certain territory sought to be incorporated into a new independent school district, under section 2794, Code Supp. 1913. Electors residing upon adjacent or contiguous territory without the town of St. Anthony, Marshall county, had petitioned the board of directors of appellant district to establish the boundary lines of a proposed independent school corporation, to include the contiguous territory described in the petition, and all of the territory included within the corporate limits of the incorporated town of St. Anthony. Included in the adjacent territory were certain lands in rural independent school district No. 4, Liberty township, Marshall county, and certain lands included in rural independent school district No. 1, Sherman township, Story county. A similar petition had been signed by electors residing within the town of St. Anthony. The town has more than 100 residents. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the petitions as to form, or as to the number of electors signing the same, or that the territory described in the petitions is not contiguous to the incorporated town of St. Anthony. These petitions came before the board of appellant district on April 20, 1922, and on that day the board passed a resolution finding that the statute had been complied with as to signers, and established the boundaries of a proposed independent school district including all the incorporated town of St. Anthony, and the contiguous territory described. Also ordered an election to be held on the proposition May 5, 1922. Due notice of the election was given. Some of the electors petitioned for separate ballot boxes. The election was held. There was a majority in favor of the proposition, both within and without the corporate limits of the town. The vote was 21 to 9 in the town and 37 to 32 outside. On May 5, 1922, the appellees, the school districts, and certain individuals in each of them, appealed from the action of the board of directors of appellant district of April 20 to the county superintendent, alleging in the affidavit filed with the county superintendent on that date, as a basis for said appeal, that the boundaries of the district in Story county will be cut to two government sections if such proposed change is carried at the election, which leaves said district with a territory not in conformity with section 2798 of the Code, and that, if said proposed independent school district of the town of St. Anthony be established, it would destroy the district in Story county, in that it would make it impossible for said district to maintain a proper school for the following reasons: Lack of taxable valuation; lack of sufficient number of pupils; difficulty of transporting pupils to other schools; economic conditions; situations of territory; inconvenience of roads; and that said district in Story county would not be better served by the proposed change, but would be injuriously affected thereby. Similar grounds were set up as to rural district No. 4 in Marshall county. Notice of this appeal from the order of the board was given by the superintendent to the different parties, which fixed the date for hearing and required appellant district to file with the county superintendent a complete transcript of the records and proceedings. These notices are dated May 5th. There is some confusion in the record as to the name of appellant district and its character. In the petition for writ of certiorari it denominates itself as the consolidated independent school corporation, etc. In other places in the record as to the proceedings had, the name is given as independent school district of St. Anthony, Marshall county. The petition for the writ was filed June 24, 1922, after the election, and appellant doubtless then considered itself as a consolidated district. This is as near as we can get at it from the record.
Appellant, two days before the date set for the hearing of the appeals, met the appeal to the county superintendent by the petition for the writ of certiorari herein. The grounds of complaint in the petition for the writ are in substance that the appeals raised questions as to which the county superintendent had no jurisdiction, no discretion. A return to the writ was made by the county superintendent, setting out the proceedings, but he declined to contest the certiorari proceedings, doubtless because the appeals were pending before him, though we do not find in the record that this was the reason. The appellant did not make the appealing districts parties to the certiorari proceeding. Upon the refusal of the county superintendent to defend, the school districts intervened, each filing a motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition and to quash the writ. The motion was treated as a special demurrer by the court, and was sustained. There was no evidence taken but the case was determined upon the pleadings and return. It is appellant's sole contention that upon the filing of the petitions with the board of directors of the St. Anthony district, there was no discretion in the board, and that the statute is mandatory and that there was nothing for the board to do but submit the matter to the voters, and, further, that the county superintendent has no jurisdiction to fix the boundaries of a proposed district.
Appellant cites Cutler v. Board, 172 Iowa, 364, 154 N. W. 671. That was an action in mandamus to compel the board of directors to call an election, and it was held that there was no discretion in the board, and that mandamus would lie, that is, as to the board. In the instant case the election was held so that mandamus would not lie to compel the board to call an election where the election had taken place. But there was no question in the Cutler Case as to the right of appeal to the county superintendent. We have held that the county superintendent may, in some cases, have certain powers in fixing and determining boundary lines. Brooker v. Ludlow, 189 Iowa, 760, 179 N. W. 145;State v. Consolidated Independent District, 190 Iowa, 903, 907, 181 N. W. 178. See, also, chapter 149, Acts Thirty-Eighth Gen. Assem. In neither of the cases just cited was the right of appeal to the county superintendent in question. Under some circumstances the county superintendent must pass the question on to the board of education. State v. District, 190 Iowa, 903, 181 N. W. 178. It is unnecessary to discuss that matter in further detail now. It is our purpose to narrow the decision to the one question presented, as to whether the parties have a right to appeal to the county superintendent and whether there was any question raised on the appeal which the county superintendent could determine. We think there was.
While it may be true, as contended by appellant, that we have held that the desirability and necessity for the independent district is for the determination of the electors, still under the statute and our decisions there is something for the board to do, or the county superintendent on appeal. It is conceded by appellant in argument that the proceedings were had under section 2794, Code Supp. 1913. That section...
To continue reading
Request your trial