Haines v. Bd. of Dirs. of Consol. Sch. Dist. of Wright
Decision Date | 04 April 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 30960.,30960. |
Citation | 167 N.W. 192,184 Iowa 401 |
Parties | HAINES v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CONSOL. SCHOOL DIST. OF WRIGHT ET AL. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Mahaska County; Henry Silwold, Judge.
On rehearing. Opinion modified, and petition for rehearing overruled.
For original opinion, see 164 N. W. 887.S. V. Reynolds and Frank T. Nash, both of Oskaloosa, for appellants.
Burrell & Devitt, I. C. Johnson, and L. T. Shangle, all of Oskaloosa, for appellee.
The last paragraph of the opinion, beginning with “Appellee contends that it was understood,” is withdrawn and the following added:
[1] II. Notwithstanding the error in the proceedings, the parties appear to have acquiesced in the adjudication of the issues raised on the record. Two of these only need be considered, and first that as to whether two ballot boxes should have been provided at the election. Section 2794a of Code Supp. 1913 provides, among other things, that:
This necessarily is mandatory for a negative majority in village or outside territory defeats the proposition.
[2] The only definition of village to be found in the Code appears in section 638, where it is said that: “Town sites platted and unincorporated shall be known as villages.” This does not mean that, though platted, a locality may be regarded as a village in the absence of houses or residences. Consolidated School District v. Martin, 170 Iowa, 262, 152 N. W. 623. The village ordinarily is defined as a small assemblage of houses, whether situated upon a platted district or not. State v. Booth, 169 Iowa, 143. 149 N. W. 244, 151 N. W. 56. Usually its character is urban or semiurban, and the density of population is greater than found in rural districts. The vocation of the inhabitants is not important or controlling. The definitions vary somewhat, as appears from an examination of the decisions, but all seem to include the elements mentioned. People v. McCune, 14 Utah, 152, 46 Pac. 658, 35 L. R. A. 396, with valuable note; Hebert v. Lavalle, 27 Ill. 448; Tilford v. Wallace, 3 Watts (Pa.) 141; State v. Lammers, 113 Wis. 398, 86 N. W. 677, 89 N. W. 501;Mikael v. Equitable Securities Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 182, 74 S. W. 67;Bouchard v. Bourassa, 57 Mich. 8, 23 N. W. 452;Young v. Village of Gilbert, 107 Minn. 364, 120 N. W. 528; 40 Cyc. 207.
All accomplished by section 638 of the Code is to restrict the term village to platted ground, but how this ground shall be platted has not been prescribed. The lots need not be a uniform size or shape, nor is it essential that the name of the village be of record on the plat. A village ordinarily may be assumed to be a name by which to identify the locality, for the statute specifies with particularity the procedure to effect a change thereof. Section 460 et seq., Code.
It appears that what is claimed to constitute a village known as Wright is...
To continue reading
Request your trial