Fowler v. Park
| Decision Date | 15 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 10977. |
| Citation | 190 P. 668,79 Okla. 1,1920 OK 239 |
| Parties | FOWLER, COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ET AL. v. PARK ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
After a municipal corporation, such as a consolidated school district, has been organized, quo warranto is the proper remedy to determine the question of its legal existence or the validity of its organization. The courts are without power so to do by injunction, or to restrain existing officers from exercising their proper functions.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pottawatomie County; Leander G. Pitman Judge.
Action by Ed Park and others against H. M. Fowler, County Superintendent of Public Instruction, and others, for an injunction. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss.
Joe M Adams and W. L. Chapman, both of Shawnee, for plaintiffs in error.
Lydick & Arrington and Goode & Dierker, all of Shawnee, for defendants in error.
This action was commenced in the district court of Pottawatomie county by Ed Park, as plaintiff, against H. M. Fowler, county superintendent of public instruction, as defendant, to enjoin the said county superintendent from declaring a consolidated school district organized and declaring three school districts disorganized. The petition alleged that Ed Park is an elector and taxpayer of school district No. 113 of Pottawatomie county, and the defendant H. M. Fowler is superintendent of public instruction of said county; that certain petitions claiming to be signed by the electors of school districts Nos. 113, 22 and 25 of said county, had been filed with the county superintendent, asking that the election be called for the purpose of voting on the question of whether said three school districts should be consolidated into one consolidated school district. Numerous allegations were made that the petitions were not properly signed, and that the district comprised less than 25 square miles, and had an assessed valuation of less than $500,000. Plaintiff alleged that an election had been held, and that the people of the district had voted to consolidate said districts, and the county superintendent was about to declare the consolidated district organized, and the three districts disorganized. Plaintiff alleges that the county superintendent was without jurisdiction to call the election, and all the proceedings thereunder were void, and plaintiff asked that the county superintendent be enjoined from taking any further steps in declaring the district consolidated, or in dissolving the old school districts.
On the same date the petition was filed the county judge issued a restraining order, enjoining the county superintendent from further proceeding in the organizing of the new district and from dissolving the old districts, and made said order effective until June 17, 1918, at 10 a. m., at which time the order provided the injunction was to be set for hearing before the district judge, and the restraining order should be effective upon plaintiff giving a bond in the sum of $500.
To this petition, a demurrer was filed. Thereafter the case was transferred to the superior court, and an amended and supplemental petition was filed, setting forth that the county superintendent had made an order dissolving the old school districts, and had organized a consolidated district and that R. L. Chancellor, N. G. McCarter, and J. V. Howell were officers of the new district, and that said directors had called an election for the 8th day of August to vote an extra levy to conduct school in said consolidated district. School District No. 113 filed a plea of intervention in the case, and was made a party plaintiff, and Messrs. Chancellor, McCarter, and Howell, the officers of the new district, were made parties defendant. The proceedings sought to enjoin the officers of the consolidated school district upon the amended and supplemental petition from performing the proper functions of their offices, as officers of the consolidated school district, and to declare the consolidated school district disorganized. To this petition the defendants demurred for the reason the amended supplemental petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the petition shows that plaintiff had no interest in said suit sufficient to maintain said cause of action. The demurrers were overruled, and the defendants filed their answer, and the case was tried to the court, and the judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The court rendered judgment, declaring the order of the county superintendent disorganizing school districts Nos. 113, 22, and 25 void, and the order organizing the said districts into a consolidated district null and void, and enjoined the directors of the consolidated district from acting as directors of said school district, and enjoining the county superintendent from making any further orders in reference to the organization and disorganization of said districts.
For reversal of said cause, plaintiff in error contends: First that the court erred in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff in error to the petition of defendants in error, for the reason the amended and supplemental petition failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of plaintiffs Ed Park or school district No. 113 and against the defendants, and failed to show any actionable right in either of said plaintiffs. It is further contended that the court erred in rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff and...
To continue reading
Request your trial