Edwards v. Pierce

• Decision Date: 18 September 1962
• Docket Number: 39762,Nos. 39758,No. 22,J,22,s. 39758
• Citation: 376 P.2d 269
• Parties: Howard EDWARDS, for himself and the other qualified electors in Independent School Districtefferson County, Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. Frazier PIERCE, County Superintendent of Schools of Jefferson County, Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 269

376 P.2d 269

1962 OK 193

Howard EDWARDS, for himself and the other qualified electors in Independent School District No. 22, Jefferson County, Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. Frazier PIERCE, County Superintendent of Schools of Jefferson County, Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

Nos. 39758, 39762.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 18, 1962.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In the absence of a valid petition signed by a majority of the qualified electors of a school district or area affected, the County Superintendent of Schools is without authority of law to call an election for changing the boundaries of a school district or annexing one district to two or more adjoining districts. The County Superintendent has the authority and duty to determine the validity of such petition.

2. Matters not presented nor considered by a trial court will not be considered by this court on appeal.

Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson County; Luther B. Eubanks, Judge.

Appeal by Howard Edwards (plaintiff below) in No. 39758 from a judgment refusing to mandamus Frazier Pierce, Superintendent of Schools, to hold a school district annexation election; and

Appeal by Howard Edwards (plaintiff below) in No. 39762 from a judgment refusing to enjoin holding of a different school district annexation election.

George W. Moser, Comanche, J. G. Clift, Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

Red Ivy, E. B. Anderson, Waurika, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

The above styled and numbered appeals are so closely related that they are consolidated for decision by this court.

In No. 39758 Howard Edwards (plaintiff below) appeals from a judgment rendered June 26, 1961, refusing to mandamus Frazier Pierce, Superintendent of Schools, Jefferson County, to hold an election on a petition to annex a portion of Independent School District No. 22, Jefferson County, to Independent School District No. 2, Stephens County. This will be referred to as the mandamus action.

In No. 39762 Howard Edwards (plaintiff below) appeals from a judgment rendered July 7, 1961, refusing to enjoin Frazier Pierce, County Superintendent of Schools, from holding an election on a petition to annex all of said District No. 22 to Independent School District No. 23, Jefferson County. However, the trial court did continue in force a temporary restraining order until the determination of this appeal. This will be referred to as the injunction action.

School District No. 22 is located between School District No. 2, on the north, and School District No. 23, on the south.

The procedural provisions and requirements for such petitions and elections are found in 70 O.S.1961 § 7-1. The applicable portion thereof provides that all or part of a school district may be annexed to another school district, when approved at an annexation election called and conducted by the county superintendent, upon petition signed by a majority of the school district electors in the territory proposed to be annexed.

We will first dispose of the appeal in the mandamus action (No. 39758). The record reflects that on June 14, 1961, plaintiff and others petitioned the defendant County Superintendent asking that an election be held for the annexation of a portion of District No. 22 to District No. 2. The defendant refused to call an annexation election on the ground that, after eliminating withdrawn signatures and names of unqualified persons, a majority of electors had not signed the petition. Plaintiff then filed the mandamus action on June 19, 1961. The trial court after a full hearing denied mandamus.

In Grady v. Marshall, Okl., 288 P.2d 1101, we stated:

'In the absence of a valid petition signed by a majority of the qualified electors of a school district or area affected, the County Superintendent of Schools is without authority of law to call an election for changing the boundaries of a school district or annexing one district to two or more adjoining districts. The County Superintendent has the authority and duty to determine the validity of such petition.'

The question is whether the trial judge was correct in determining that the petition for the election lacked the signatures of a majority of the electors in the territory proposed to be annexed. The petition for the election had 76 signatures. Upon consideration of all the evidence the trial court found that 7 persons had withdrawn their signatures from the petition prior to action thereon by defendant; that one of the signing parties (Lupe Rodriquez) was not an elector in the affected area; and that the signatures of two persons were invalid because they were subscribed by other parties. The trial judge found the petition for election was validly signed by 66 electors.

Plaintiff argues the parties who withdrew their signatures were confused as between the instant petition and another and different petition. This argument is based purely on speculation. There is no evidence to support such contention. Regarding Lupe Rodriquez, the evidence was that he had periodically worked on a ranch in the area for several years, but otherwise resided without the area and in other parts of Oklahoma and in Texas. He was present at the trial but was not called to testify. We cannot say that the court's finding in this respect was against the clear weight of the evidence.

Plaintiff also complains of the rejection or disqualification of two signatures to the petition. The evidence in support thereof was the testimony of an officer of a local bank, who was qualified as experienced in comparison of signatures, that these...