Gross v. Moreland

• Decision Date: 18 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 12203.,12203.
• Citation: 190 S.W. 961
• Parties: GROSS et al. v. MORELAND.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

190 S.W. 961

GROSS et al. v. MORELAND.

No. 12203.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 18, 1916.

Rehearing Denied December 29, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bates County; C. A. Calvird, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by E. V. Gross and others against A. C. Moreland. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

C. A. Denton, of Butler, for appellants. Silvers & Dawson, of Butler, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

This proceeding is in equity to enjoin defendant, as county school superindent of schools and certain citizens from performing certain acts preliminary to the formation of a consolidated school district. The trial court refused a temporary injunction, and at the succeeding term of court, defendant demurred to the bill, and the court sustained the demurrer, whereupon plaintiff refused to plead further, and judgment was rendered for defendant.

Before considering the allegations of the petition we will refer to the late statute on the subject of consolidating school districts (Laws 1913, p. 722). Section 1 of that act provides that:

"The qualified voters of any community in Missouri may organize a consolidated school district."

Section 3, provides that:

"When the resident citizens of any community desire to form a consolidated district, a petition signed by at least twenty-five qualified voters of said community shall be filed with the county superintendent of public schools"

—and that on receipt of this petition it becomes the duty of the superintendent "to visit the community" and investigate its needs "and determine the exact boundaries of the proposed consolidated district"; that he shall call a meeting of the voters of the proposed district to consider the question of consolidation; that he shall give notice, make plats, etc.; that "the special meeting shall be called to order by the superintendent," or some one deputized by him; that a chairman shall be chosen and an election held as under section 10865, R. S. 1909. Section 3 further recognizes that the consolidated district may lie partly in each of adjoining counties.

It is alleged in the petition that the plaintiffs were residing in a consolidated district known as No. 2, duly organized under the law in May, 1913, and composed of lands in Cass county and the adjoining county of Bates, and that said district had been conducting its school since the; that afterwards, in December, 1915, a properly signed petition was delivered to the defendant superintendent, asking for an election to form a consolidated district which, when formed, would take from the first district organized (No. 2) that part of its territory lying in Bates county; that said defendant superintendent, in carrying out the provisions of the law of 1913 aforesaid, "has visited the community, and in violation of the laws of the state with reference to fixing boundaries of consolidated school districts, and desiring to deprive district No. 2 of that part of the territory of said district which lies in Bates county," did fix the boundary lines...