Curlew Consol. School Dist. v. Palo Alto County Bd. of Ed., 48786

• Decision Date: 15 November 1955
• Docket Number: No. 48786,48786
• Citation: 247 Iowa 112,73 N.W.2d 20
• Parties: CURLEW CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. PALO ALTO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Pocahontas County Board of Education, Joint County Boards of Education for Palo Alto and Pocahontas Counties, John E. Smith, Palo Alto County Superintendent, and Frances Young, Pocahontas County Superintendent, Appellees, Mallard Consolidated School District in the Counties of Palo Alto and Pocahontas Counties, Iowa, Intervenor-Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 20

73 N.W.2d 20

247 Iowa 112

CURLEW CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. PALO ALTO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Pocahontas County Board of Education, Joint County Boards of Education for Palo Alto and Pocahontas Counties, John E. Smith, Palo Alto County Superintendent, and Frances Young, Pocahontas County Superintendent, Appellees Mallard Consolidated School District in the Counties of Palo Alto and Pocahontas Counties, Iowa, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 48786.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 15, 1955.

Smith & Hanson, Emmetsburg, and Linnan & Lynch, Algona, for appellant.

John J. Duhigg, Emmetsburg, for appellees Palo Alto County Board of Education and John E. Smith, Palto Alto County Superintendent.

James W. Hudson, Pocahontas, for appellees Pocahontas County Board of Education and Frances Young, Pocahontas County Superintendent.

F. C. Gilchrist, Jr., Laurens, and A. C. Carmichael, Pocahontas, for intervenor-appellee.

GARFIELD, Justice.

The sole question submitted to the district court and to us in this certiorari action is whether plaintiff consolidated school district, maintaining an approved central school, may be reduced in area below 16 sections of land, to approximately eight sections, by the formation of a community school district under chapter 275, Code 1954, I.C.A. We affirm the trial court's decision there may be such reduction.

Plaintiff's case is based entirely on the claim section 274.3, Code 1954, I.C.A., contains a mandatory prohibition against reducing to less than 16 sections of land a consolidated school district maintaining a central school. It is not contended any other statute now in force contains such a provision. Section 274.3, so far as applicable here, states:

'No new school district shall be formed, nor shall the boundary lines of any existing school district be so changed as to make it contain an area less than four government sections of land; but nothing herein shall be construed to * * * permit the reduction of an existing consolidated district below an area of sixteen government sections of land.'

We have italicized the language plaintiff argues is a mandatory prohibition against reducing a consolidated district below 16 sections.

For a proper understanding of section 274.3 consideration must also be given section 276.20, subsequently expressly repealed by Code chapter 275 under which defendant boards are proceeding to form the new community district here. Section 276.20, enacted 14 years before 274.3, in part provided: 'A consolidated school corporation, maintaining an approved central school, shall not be reduced to less than sixteen government sections, * * *.'

Liberty Consolidated School District v. Schindler, 246 Iowa ----, 70 N.W.2d 544, 546-547, considers the meaning of the language in section 274.3 upon which plaintiff's case here is bottomed and holds:

'Section 274.3 contains no definite prohibition against reduction of an existing consolidated district below 16 sections. The language near the end of 274.3 on which plaintiffs' case is based is in the nature of a proviso evidently inserted by the legislature as a cautionary measure so its definite four-section prohibition should not be construed as impliedly permitting the reduction of an existing consolidated district below 16 sections (but with four sections or more) and thus conflict with or impliedly repeal the earlier section 276.20.

'There is merit in defendants' argument that the language of 274.3 on which plaintiffs rely implies or assumes there was at the time it was enacted another statute prohibiting the reduction of an existing consolidated district below 16 sections. As previously explained, section 276.20 was that other statute. * * * The legislature obviously desired to make it clear 274.3 was not intended to repudiate the existing statute.' (Emphasis added.)

As before indicated, section 276.20, quoted from above, was expressly repealed by the present Code chapter 275. The effect of such repeal upon the language in 274.3 relied on by plaintiffs is also considered in the Liberty Consolidated School case, supra, at page ___ of 246 Iowa, at page 547 of 70 N.W.2d where we conclude: 'There is no indication the language of 274.3 relied on by plaintiffs was intended as a prohibition against reducing a consolidated district below 16 sections which would survive the repeal of 276.20.'

The last sentence of Code section 275.5 (of present chapter 275) expressly permits 'reducing an existing school district to less than four' sections of land. The Liberty case, supra, holds the conclusion is inescapable that this provision is repugnant to and irreconcilable with the...