Consolidated School Dist. No. 2 of Garfield County v. Beeson

• Decision Date: 19 December 1911
• Citation: 120 P. 643,30 Okla. 802,1911 OK 524
• Parties: CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2 OF GARFIELD COUNTY et al. v. BEESON et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

120 P. 643

30 Okla. 802, 1911 OK 524

CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2 OF GARFIELD COUNTY et al. v. BEESON et al.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

December 19, 1911

Syllabus by the Court.

The qualified electors of a school district have power, under the provisions of section 8056, Snyder's Comp. Laws Okla 1909, at a special meeting, legally called for that purpose to give such directions and make such provisions as may be deemed necessary in relation to the prosecution or defense of any suit or proceeding in which the district may be a party and may order the dismissal of an appeal of an action theretofore taken by the district to the Supreme Court, and in case of the failure or refusal of the school district board to carry out such directions and instructions, may designate a committee to act for and in behalf of such district, and such committee will thereby have power to appear and dismiss said appeal.

In an action brought against the members of a school district board in their official capacity, whereby it is sought to prevent, by injunction, the sale of school district property, the letting of a contract for the erection of a new building, the organization of a graded school, etc., the district is the real party in interest, and the members of the school district board are nominal parties only.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court, Garfield County; James B. Cullison, Judge.

Action by Ira L. Beeson and others against Consolidated School District No. 2 of Garfield County and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Dismissed.

McKeever & Walker and Sturgis & Manatt, for plaintiffs in error.

Garber & Kruse, for defendants in error.

Robberts, Curran & Otjen, for committee representing Consolidated School District No. 2, Garfield County.

ROBERTSON C.

This is an action begun in the district court of Garfield county by Ira L. Beeson, Bismark Ripley, and Edwin Getz to enjoin plaintiffs in error, Emil Jupe, treasurer, E. E. Landis, director, Stephen A. Beck, clerk, of consolidated school district No. 2, Garfield county, Okl., from selling certain properties formerly owned by school districts 1, 2, 23, and 24 (which were consolidated May 5, 1911, under the name of consolidated school district No. 2 of Garfield county, and which is the real party plaintiff in error herein), and that pending a hearing and proceedings to change said consolidated district No. 2, and to return to the school districts out of which it was organized, said consolidated district No. 2, its officers, and agents, be temporarily restrained from the selling or incumbering in any way said properties, so that, if a return to said school districts 1, 2, 23, and 24, is had, said districts will have suitable facilities to hold school therein during the coming year, and that said defendants be enjoined from letting a contract for the erection and construction of a school building in said consolidated district, and for such other and further relief as the equities in the premises may warrant to a majority of the qualified voters in said district.

A temporary injunction was issued and served, and a motion made to dissolve the same, which relief was denied, whereupon defendant school district, by its officers, answered by general denial, and trial was had on September 1, 1911, and judgment was entered making the temporary injunction permanent, and defendants have brought this appeal to secure a reversal of said judgment. The trial court found, among other things, that consolidated district No. 2 of Garfield county was a duly organized and existing school district, and that it had a legally elected, qualified, and acting school board; that it had no building site; that at an election held on the 3d of June, 1911, for the purpose of voting bonds to erect a new schoolhouse, said bonds were voted down, and that said district has no funds with which to build a schoolhouse; that it now owns and controls four houses located in what was formerly districts 1, 2, 23, and 24; that said schoolhouses are centrally located in said old districts, and are well equipped for school purposes, and that there are 144 school children in said district entitled to school advantages. The court found that said consolidated district for want of funds, and insufficient time to build a schoolhouse, is unable to accommodate said children for the coming year. The court further found that owing to the financial condition of consolidated school district No. 2, and in view of the further fact that the time for the schools of the county to begin having arrived, it would be detrimental to the children of consolidated school district No. 2 for said school board to attempt to organize a graded school such as is contemplated by the law authorizing the organization of consolidated school districts. The judgment of the court was that the school board of consolidated district No. 2 in said county and state should be, and it was, enjoined from the removing or disposing of the schoolhouses located in what was formerly known as school districts numbered 1, 2, 23, and 24, from their present sites; that said school board be enjoined from entering into a contract to build or purchase a schoolhouse for said consolidated district; that they immediately proceed to employ four teachers to teach in school districts heretofore known as districts 1, 2, 23, and 24; that they shall maintain and keep up said schools for a term of not less than six months, unless it be made to appear that funds are not available to maintain school for said length of time; that said board was further enjoined from putting into operation or maintaining a consolidated union, or graded, school in said school district, as is contemplated by law governing consolidated schools, until the further order of the court. This appeal was filed in this court September 13, 1911, and on November 9, 1911, a motion to dismiss the appeal was filed, not by defendants in error, but by Messrs. Robberts, Curran & Otjen, who sign as "Attorneys for Consolidated School District No. 2, for the Special Purpose of this Motion."

The motion to dismiss the appeal, omitting the caption, is as follows: "Comes now consolidated school district No. 2 of Garfield county, Okl., plaintiff in error, by its attorneys, Robberts, Curran & Otjen, who have been employed for the purpose of this motion by I. L. Beeson, George M. Dizney, and Joe Zeleny, a committee who was duly elected at a special meeting of the electors of consolidated school district No. 2 of Garfield county held at the schoolhouse in old district No. 24 in said county, on September 23, 1911, and authorized as shown from the minutes of said meeting to employ counsel for the purpose of filing this motion and representing the said consolidated school district No. 2 of said county in said court at the hearing of this motion, and to ask to have the said appeal dismissed at the cost of the said consolidated school district No. 2. The authority of said attorneys for appearing for this motion is hereto attached, marked 'Exhibit A,' and made a part of this motion. And the said consolidated school district No. 2 of said county shows to the court that a special meeting of the voters of said consolidated school district No. 2 was held on the 23d day of September, 1911, at the schoolhouse in old district No. 24 in Garfield county. That said special meeting was called by a petition filed with the clerk of said school district by a majority of the electors residing in said consolidated school district. A copy of said petition calling for said special meeting is hereto attached, marked 'Exhibit B,' and made a part of this motion. That, in pursuance to said call, notices were posted in five public places in the said consolidated school district by the clerk of said district, as shown by affidavits hereto attached, and marked 'Exhibit C.' That in pursuance to said notices, and at the time and place fixed in said notices for said meeting, 137 legal voters of said school district appeared and attended said meeting. That the minutes of said meeting, so far as the same appertain to the above-entitled action, and so far as the same concern and authorize the dismissal of the appeal in the above-entitled action, duly sworn to, are hereto attached, marked 'Exhibit D,' and made a part of this motion. That it was voted at said meeting, as shown from said minutes, that it was the desire of the said school district that the appeal in the above-entitled action should be dismissed, and I. L. Beeson, George M. Dizney, and Joe Zeleny were appointed by the vote of said meeting to represent the said school district in employing counsel; and were authorized and instructed by the voters at said meeting to dismiss or cause to be dismissed the appeal in the above-entitled action. Wherefore, consolidated school district No. 2 moves the court that its appeal in the above-entitled action be dismissed at its cost. Robberts, Curran & Otjen, Attorneys for Consolidated School District No. 2, for the Special Purpose of this Motion."

Exhibit A: "Authority to Appear. This is to certify that we, the undersigned committee appointed at the special meeting of consolidated school district No. 2 held at the schoolhouse in old district 24 on September 23, 1911, in Garfield county Okl., pursuant to call, and, as authorized by the voters at said meeting, have employed attorneys Robberts, Curran & Otjen, of Enid., Okl., to file a motion in the Supreme Court of the state of Oklahoma to dismiss the appeal pending in said court wherein the consolidated school district No. 2 of Garfield county, Okl., and Emil Jupe, treasurer, E. E. Landis, director, and Stephen A. Beck, clerk, of said district, are plaintiffs in error, and Ira L....