Haines v. Board of Directors of Consolidated Independent School Dist. of Wright

• Decision Date: 25 October 1917
• Docket Number: 30960
• Parties: J. A. HAINES, Appellee, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WRIGHT, et al., Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

167 N.W. 192

184 Iowa 401

J. A. HAINES, Appellee, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WRIGHT, et al., Appellants

No. 30960

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 25, 1917

REHEARING DENIED SEPTEMBER 30, 1918.

Appeal from Mahaska District Court.--HENRY SILWOLD, Judge.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION, APRIL 4, 1918.

CERTIORARI proceedings to test the validity of the organization of a consolidated independent school district. On hearing, the district court annulled and set aside "all proceedings taken or actions had," and ordered all property returned to the respective districts included. The defendants appeal.--Reversed.

Affirmed. Petition for rehearing overruled.

S. V Reynolds and Frank T. Nash, for appellants.

Burrell & Devitt, I. C. Johnson, and L. T. Shangle, for appellee.

LADD J. PRESTON, C. J., EVANS, GAYNOR, and STEVENS, JJ., concur.

OPINION

LADD, J.

I.

The last paragraph of the opinion beginning with "Appellee contends that it was understood," is withdrawn and the following added:

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 needed to 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:

The defendants are the board of directors of the so-called Consolidated Independent School District of Wright, and the directors individually; and the plaintiff, a resident of the district. The petition alleged that said district "has not been organized and established in a manner provided by law, and there is, in law and fact, no such school district as the Consolidated Independent School District of Wright, Iowa, for the following reasons:" (1) A petition was not filed with the board of directors of the district within the proposed territory having the largest number of resident voters; (2) such board of directors did not submit to the electors the question of organizing the district; (3) the proposition petitioned for was never submitted to the voters; (4) the electors did not vote upon the proposition stated in the petition or in the notice of election; (5) the voters passed on a proposition never authorized to be submitted; (6) the judges of election were not sworn or selected, nor did they make returns or canvass the ballots or declare the result as required by law; and (7) ballots were received and counted which were cast between 10 o'clock A. M. and 1 o'clock P. M. on the day of election, and counted contrary to law. The petition was amended by adding as an eighth ground that, included in the territory proposed was the village of Wright, and that a separate ballot box was not provided for the electors residing therein. The prayer is that a writ of certiorari issue, and that a transcript of all proceedings be returned by defendants, and "that said proceedings may be annulled, set aside, and held for naught." Defendants, in their answer as amended, denied that plaintiff had "any legal right to certiorari proceedings," pleaded a former adjudication, and also to the merits. The contention of plaintiff, then, is that, owing to the defects in the proceedings as alleged, the organization of said consolidated district was never effected, and that the defendants are exercising the franchises of a corporation that, in fact, never existed.

The bare recital of the issues discloses that the remedy sought is not available in certiorari proceedings. That writ may be issued "in all cases where an inferior tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions is alleged to have exceeded his proper jurisdiction, or is otherwise acting illegally, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy." Section 4154, Code. Neither as a board nor as directors individually of the so-called Consolidated Independent School District of Wright have defendants had anything to do with the different steps leading up to the organization of the district. The defendant directors were elected subsequent to all the transactions complained of, and the board organized thereafter. In none of the matters can defendants be said, then, to have exercised judicial functions, acted illegally, or exceeded their jurisdiction.

The action is leveled against the board of directors of the Consolidated Independent School District, who, as is alleged, "are acting in a capacity of a board of directors, and transacting business as a board of directors of the Consolidated School District of Wright, Iowa; that the aforesaid Consolidated Independent School District of Wright, Iowa, has not been organized and established in a manner provided by law, and there is, in law and fact, no such school district as the Consolidated Independent School District of Wright, Iowa."

Manifestly, certiorari is not an appropriate remedy in such a case. It is not pretended that what they did, of which complaint is made, was in the exercise of judicial or quasi judicial functions. The sole contention is that they are assuming to exercise the franchises of a corporation which, because of alleged defects in the proceedings, was never organized, and therefore does not exist. Manifestly, certiorari is not available as a remedy in such a case. Lees v. Drainage Commissioners, 125 Ill. 47 (16 N.E. 915); Nelson v. Consolidated Ind. School Dist. of Troy Mills, 181 Iowa 424, 164 N.W. 874.

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 2794-a, Code Supplement, 1913, provides, among other things, that:

"When it is proposed to include in such district a city, or town or village, the voters residing upon the territory outside the incorporated limits of such city, town or village shall vote separately upon the proposition for the creating of such new district. The judges of said election shall provide separate ballot boxes in which shall be deposited the votes cast by...