Farrell v. County of Sibley
| Decision Date | 26 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | 20,093 - (221) |
| Citation | 161 N.W. 152,135 Minn. 439 |
| Parties | J. C. FARRELL v. COUNTY OF SIBLEY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
From an order of the board of county commissioners of Sibley county, denying a petition for the enlargement of Independent School District No. 71 of that county, J. C. Farrell, a resident and legal voter of that district, appealed to the district court for that county, on the ground that the action of the board was against the best interests of the territory affected and of the inhabitants thereof. The appeal was heard before Morrison, J., who made findings and ordered judgment reversing the order of the county board and attaching to the school district the territory described in paragraph 3 of the findings. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, defendant appealed. Reversed.
School district -- change of boundary -- review on appeal.
1. On an appeal to the district court from an order of the board of commissioners changing the boundaries of a school district in proceedings under G.S. 1913, § 2677, the only question presented to the court is whether the order appealed from was fraudulent, arbitrary, unjust or an unreasonable disregard of the best interests of the territory affected.
School district -- question of necessity not judicial.
2. The question of the propriety and necessity of the proposed change is a legislative and not a judicial question.
Appeal and error -- no reversal when evidence is not decisively opposed to finding.
3. Where the evidence presented on the appeal leaves in doubt the question whether the best interests of the affected territory justify the proposed change, the decision of the county board should not be disturbed by the court.
Evidence insufficient.
4. Evidence held insufficient to justify vacating the order of the county board here under review.
Appeal and error -- statute inapplicable.
5. Section 675, G.S. 1913, providing for the pleadings on appeals from the board of county commissioners in the allowance or disallowance of claims against the county has no application to appeals taken under section 2676, G.S. 1913.
W. C. & W. F. Odell, for appellant.
W. H Leeman, for respondent.
Proceedings by petition of freeholders under section 2677, G.S. 1913, for the enlargement of Independent School District No. 71, of Sibley county, by adding thereto certain territory to be detached from adjoining common school districts. The petition was duly presented to the board of county commissioners as required by the statute, together with a remonstrance against the proposed change, and after due consideration of the matter and of the evidence tendered in support of and in opposition to the same, the prayer thereof was denied and the proceeding dismissed. An appeal was taken to the district court, as authorized by section 2676, where it was heard by the court without a jury, resulting in a reversal of the order of the county board and a judgment granting the prayer of the petition. The remonstrants appealed.
The record presents one principal question, namely, whether, within the rule controlling the decision of the courts in such proceedings, the findings of the trial court are sustained by sufficient evidence.
1. The extent of the authority and jurisdiction of the courts in matters of this character is well settled in this state as well as elsewhere. The matter of establishing, enlarging the boundaries of or of dissolving municipal corporations is purely legislative. Jurisdiction in that respect cannot either directly or indirectly, be conferred upon the courts. State v. Simons, 32 Minn. 540, 21 N.W. 750; 2 Notes on Minn. Reports, 659. Yet a limited jurisdiction, by way of appeal from the legislative body of whose decision complaint is made, may be and often is conferred upon the courts by express legislation. But the jurisdiction thus conferred is necessarily confined to questions affecting the legality of the proceedings, the jurisdiction of the board or officer whose decision is sought to be reviewed and, as to the merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was fraudulent, arbitrary or oppressive, or an unreasonable disregard of the best interests of the territory affected. Schweigert v. Abbott, 122 Minn. 383, 142 N.W. 723; Sorknes v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Lac qui Parle County, 131 Minn. 79, 154 N.W. 669; School Dist. No. 36 Marshall County v. School Dist. No. 21 Marshall County, 134 Minn. 82, 158 N.W. 729. In proceedings under the statute for a change in the boundaries of school districts, the question whether the best interests of the affected territory, and of those residing therein, will be enhanced by the proposed change, is the primary question submitted to the board of county commissioners, but is not the question with which the court is confronted upon an appeal from the order of that body. To avoid intermeddling with the legislative judgment and discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial