Crawford v. Sch. Tp. of Beaver
| Decision Date | 12 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 31966.,31966. |
| Parties | CRAWFORD ET AL. v. SCHOOL TP. OF BEAVER, DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; J. H. Applegate, Judge.
The opinion states the case. Affirmed.
Charles W. Lyon, of Des Moines, for appellants.
W. H. Winegar, of Perry, for appellees.
On April 5, 1916, a petition signed by the requisite number of qualified voters and approved by the county superintendent of schools was presented to the board of directors of the school township of Beaver asking the formation of a consolidated independent school district to include territory (describing it) consisting of not less than 16 sections of land according to government survey and lying partly in the civil township of Beaver and partly in the civil township of Spring Valley, Dallas county, Iowa. Acting upon this petition the board of directors ordered that an election be called to be held at the village of Gardiner within the proposed consolidated district on April 22, 1916, and designating the place and the hours therefor, at which time and place there should be submitted to the voters of said territory the question, “Shall the proposed consolidated independent school district of Gardiner be established?” Notices of such election were ordered posted as provided by law. On the following day, April 7, 1916, the secretary of the board of directors posted notice of such election at five public places within the territory of the proposed district. On April 22d the election was held, two ballot boxes being provided, one for the use of the voters residing upon the plat of the village of Gardiner and another for the voters of the remainder of the proposed district outside of such plat. A canvass of the vote disclosed a majority, both of the voters of the village and of the outside territory in favor of such consolidation. Upon the completion of said canvass the board of directors of Beaver school township called an election for the choice of members of the board of the consolidated district. This election was held May 20, 1916, and resulted in the selection of J. H. Wright, D. W. Gardiner, Henry Schnoor, J. W. Kever, and George Haskel to constitute said new board. All of the persons named are impleaded as defendants in this action. Immediately or soon after such election the persons named met in the city of Perry, which is within the civil township of Spring Valley, in which, as already noted, the consolidated district is, in part, situated, and then and there organized by electing a president and secretary who are also defendants herein. On June 17, 1917, the board of directors as thus organized met again in Perry and by unanimous vote located the site for the construction of a schoolhouse for the consolidated district at Gardiner. From this order certain electors of the consolidated district, for themselves and for others entitled to appeal and desiring to join therein, appealed to the county superintendent of schools, who affirmed the order made by the directors. From this decision further appeal was taken to the state superintendent of public instruction, by whom the decision of the county superintendent was sustained. It should be also said that at the meeting of the board of directors in Perry on June 17th a resolution was adopted to raise money by taxation for the purchase of a schoolhouse site and for the construction and equipment of a schoolhouse and calling an election of the voters of the consolidated district to pass upon the question of such taxation and issuing bonds for the aforesaid purposes. Such election was held July 29, 1916, and the proposition was carried by a majority vote. At the time of this last election the appeal from the order locating the schoolhouse site had not been disposed of. After the affirmance of said order by the superintendent this action was begun October 17, 1916. The petition alleges the several matters hereinbefore recited (except the appeal taken from the location of the site for the schoolhouse) and avers that the consolidated district never acquired a valid and legal organization because the notice ordered and posted for the first election was not made as required by law, in that the statute requires such notice to be posted “not less than 10 days next preceding the election,” while the notice in this instance was posted more than 10 days, to wit, about 15 days; also because such consolidation has the effect to leave two subdistricts, each with a territory less than four government sections in extent; and third, because the meeting of the directors at which they elected a president and secretary and ordered the election upon the question of levying taxes and issuing bonds was held outside of the geographical boundaries of the consolidated district. It is further alleged that the schoolhouse site designated by the directiors is not centrally located and was selected without properly considering its position or the number and convenience of the pupils as is required by the terms of the statute. Because of the matters thus pleaded plaintiffs pray for a decree declaring the attempted creation and organization of the consolidated district of Gardiner and the location of a schoolhouse site at Gardiner void and of no effect, and that defendants named as officers and directors of such district be enjoined from further exercise of authority in such capacity and from levying any taxes or issuing any bonds for the use of such district, and for general relief. An amendment to the petition was filed pending the trial, alleging in general terms that the action of the board in locating the schoolhouse site at Gardiner was illegal for the further reason that the board of directors in making such order “acted fraudulently and in bad faith,” but stating no fact or facts constituting the alleged fraud or bad faith. Issue was joined upon the petition, and the trial court after hearing the evidence found for the defendants and dismissed the bill and plaintiffs appeal.
It will be observed that while the petition is framed in a single count the cause of action stated has a double aspect, in that it first denies the validity and legal organization of the consolidated district of Gardiner and as a necessary consequence challenges the validity of all the official acts and proceedings of the officers and board of directors of such district, and it also challenges the selection of the schoolhouse site upon objections which, if well taken, do not necessarily involve the district's legal existence. There is much in the record to justify the thought, if not the conclusion, that the real bone of contention in the case is the location of schoolhouse, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial