Foster v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 10, Delta Tp., 72

• Decision Date: 07 December 1949
• Docket Number: No. 72,72
• Citation: 40 N.W.2d 310,326 Mich. 272
• Parties: FOSTER et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 10, DELTA TP., et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 310

40 N.W.2d 310

326 Mich. 272

FOSTER et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 10, DELTA TP., et al.

No. 72.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 7, 1949.

Person & Searl, Lansing, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Thrun & Sidwell, Lansing, for defendants and appellees.

Before the Entire Bench.

BOYLES, Justice.

At a special election held April 5, 1949, in school district No. 10, Delta township, Eaton county, Michigan, two propositions were voted upon. Proposition No. 1 was whether the school district should borrow $100,000 and issue bonds to erect an additional school building and acquire land therefor. Proposition No. 2 was whether the tax limitation against assessing the property in the district (except for retirement of debt incurred prior to December 8, 1932) should be increased by 2.5 per cent for 20 years, for the purpose of providing a debt retirement fund to pay off the principal and interest on the bonds, if issued, as they became due. According to the return of the election inspectors only those voters qualified to vote under the provisions of article 3, § 4, of the Michigan Constitution (1908) were permitted to vote on the first proposition. On the second proposition, all voters qualified under the provisions of article 3, § 1, of the Constitution were permitted to vote. Both propositions carried by a small majority.

Within 10 days thereafter, a petition requesting a recount of the votes cast upon each proposition was served upon the president of the defendant board of education. The board of education refused to conduct a recount and adopted resolutions providing for the issuance of the bonds and for the filing of an application with the State municipal finance commission for the issuance of its certificate of approval. The application was duly filed and said commission issued its certificate, whereupon the defendant board of education caused notice of sale of said bonds to be published. The sale has been postponed indefinitely, following the filing of the bill of complaint in this case.

Shortly before the date set for such sale, the plaintiffs herein, who are school electors and taxpayers in said school district, filed the bill of complaint in this case challenging the legality of the election and seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant board of education and its members from issuing said bonds or causing any additional taxes to be levied as a consequence of said election. In their bill of complaint, plaintiffs claim (1) that only those voters who possessed the qualifications of electors under article 3, § 4, of the State Constitution should have been allowed to vote on proposition No. 2 because it involved the direct expenditure of public money, and (2) that the board had no right to certify the result of the election until after a recount. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint, which the court granted, holding that as a matter of law the two propositions were properly submitted and voted on, and that the board is not required to hold a recount. The same questions are raised here on the appeal, and the conclusions reached thereon will control decision.

1. Article 3, § 4, of the 1908 Constitution provides: 'Whenever any question is submitted to a vote of the electors which involves the direct expenditure of public money or the issue of bonds, only such persons having the qualifications of electors who have property assessed for taxes in any part of the district or territory to be affected by the result of such election or the lawful husbands or wives of such persons shall be entitled to vote thereon.'

Appellants claim that proposition No. 2 voted on at the election involved the direct expenditure of money because it stated: 'Shall the limitation on the total amount of taxes which may be assessed against all property in school district No. 10, Delta township, Eaton county, Michigan, for all purposes, except taxes levied for the payment of interest and principal on obligations incurred prior to December 8, 1932, be increased, as provided by section 21, article 10 of the Constitution of Michigan, by 2.5 per cent of the assessed valuation of all property in the school district for a period of 20 years from 1949 to 1958, both inclusive, for the sole purpose of providing a debt retirement fund to pay the principal and interest on bonds of the school district in the principal amount of $100,000 to be issued, if approved by the qualified electors of the school district, for the purpose of erecting and furnishing an additional school building and of acquiring additional land for school purposes?'

The statement on the ballot as to the purpose for the proposed tax increase, namely, to provide a debt retirement fund for the bonds 'to be issued, if approved,' was authorized by section 3(c) of Act No. 62, P.A.1933 (property tax limitation act), as last amended by Act No. 293, P.A.1947, C.L.1948, § 211.203(c), Stat.Ann.1947 Cum.Supp. § 7.63(c), which provides as follows: 'Said ballot may also state the purpose for which the funds derived from the voted increase over the constitutional tax rate limitation may be used, and such funds shall not be considered by the county allocation board in dividing the net limitation tax rate among the various governmental units entitled thereto under the provisions of this act.'

Plaintiffs claim that question No. 2, as it was stated on the ballot, 'involves' the direct expenditure of money, the same as the purpose stated in the first proposition submitted, namely, whether to borrow money and issue bonds. We are not in accord with such construction. The two propositions were submitted separately, at one and the same election. They are separate propositions, and were correctly submitted to the voters as such. The first proposition involves the issuance of bonds. The second proposition involves an increase of the tax limitation to retire the bonds when due. If they meant the same thing, both could have been submitted in the same proposition, which logically would follow if appellants' claim is correct.

School district No. 10 of Delta township is a graded school district and not a registration district, and hence is not governed by the provisions of the school law applying to a school district of the first class. However, the distinction, as disclosed in Rentschler v. Board of Education, 324 Mich. 603, 37 N.W.2d 645, is not of...