Haines v. Rural High School Dist. No. 3 of Republic County
| Decision Date | 09 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 38312,38312 |
| Citation | 171 Kan. 271,232 P.2d 437 |
| Parties | HAINES et al. v. RURAL HIGH SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 OF REPUBLIC COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. An individual is not a proper plaintiff and cannot maintain an action for injunctive relief against abuse of power by municipal officers unless he alleges and subsequently proves that his tax burdens will be increased. Such actions must be prosecuted by the state or one of its officers charged with the responsibility of scrutinizing the acts of public officers and board.
2. In order for an individual to maintain an action of the character above mentioned he must plead and prove that he has sustained special damage different in kind from that of the public generally.
3. A petition examined in an action to enjoin alleged illegal use of public funds, and a demurrer thereto on the ground that plaintiffs had not legal authority to maintain the action, and held, that the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer.
N. J. Ward and Percy H. Collins, Jr., both of Belleville, were on the briefs for appellants.
Ed Chapman, of Belleville, and Melvin R. Quinlan, of Topeka (John S. Dean, Jr., and Peter F. Caldwell, both of Topeka, on the briefs), for appellees.
Plaintiffs designate this action as one to enjoin the illegal expenditure of funds voted for one purpose and being used for another, while defendants designate it as one to question their authority to expend funds lawfully levied and collected for purpose authorized by a majority of the electors of each district. The action represents the second chapter of litigation commenced and disposed of in State ex rel. Spurney v. Rural High School Dist. No. 3, 169 Kan. 671, 220 P.2d 164. We note that the third chapter is disposed of in Kroeger v. Rural High School Dist. No. 3, 171 Kan. 347, 232 P.2d 430.
Plaintiffs' amended petition first charged that the defendants were threatening to enter into contracts and do the things complained of without authority of law which would cause the creation of public burdens upon the property of plaintiffs and cause the levy of illegal taxes and that the suit was brought to enjoin the defendants from thus proceeding illegally. Then follow allegations of the status of the parties, and that on June 10, 1949, an election was held by the rural high school district to vote bonds to provide funds for acquiring a site for and erection of a school building but that the election proceedings contained no reference to acquiring a site for or the construction of a building for the joint use of the two defendant districts, and similar allegations were made with respect to the common school election of June 10, 1949, it being there alleged there was no election for change of site; that the defendants were proceeding to jointly acquire a site and build a building for joint school purposes; that bonds were voted at the two elections which had been sold, the proceeds being held by the two districts which threatened to illegally expend such sums for acquiring a site and erecting a building for joint school purposes. It was further alleged that the rural high school district, under proceedings had before the judge of the district court, had condemned certain lands for a site for a school building and that commissioners had been appointed whose report was approved by the court and that the landowners had appealed from the award made; that the condemnation proceedings were without authority, and without the valid selection of a site and that defendants were threatening to use the same for joint school purposes without any legal authority so to do. Reference was made to the action which was finally concluded in State ex rel. Spurney, v. Rural High School Dist. No. 3, supra, and it was alleged that after determination of that action the defendant board members determined to erect a building on the site selected for joint school purposes, had advertised for bids for construction of a school building, and that they had done so without legal authority and without taking the necessary legal steps therefor, and that the defendants would accept bids and illegally contract for the construction of such joint building and illegally jointly use the same, and illegally expend the funds of both districts, and would burden both districts with taxes without any authority in acquiring the site and constructing the building. Plaintiffs further alleged that should it be determined that defendants had illegally expended funds of either district and if the court could not grant adequate relief by injunction, the court should determine the questions presented and the amounts paid and that the district sustaining a loss because thereof have judgment for the same against the defendant board members, and that plaintiffs had made no demand upon defendants or any of them or upon the county superintendent to recover said illegal expenses for the reason such demand would be of no avail; that plaintiffs did not know exactly what illegal expenditures had been made or contracted to be made. Plaintiffs further alleged a controversy had arisen as to the correct meaning and construction of Laws 1949, Ch. 353, G.S.1949, 72-317, and they then set out their interpretation of the statute, which we shall not review. There is no allegation as to what defendants contend. The prayer was that the statute be construed and that the defendants be enjoined from doing the things complained of in the petition. In order that there be no misunderstanding, it is noted that at no place in the petition was there any allegation that the doing of any act complained of would affect the plaintiffs in any manner different than the public at large or that they would suffer any tax burden other or different than that of other taxpayers in the two districts.
The defendants demurred to the amended petition for the reasons it disclosed that plaintiffs had no legal authority to sue and prosecute the action, and that facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants were not stated. The trial court sustained the demurrer and plaintiffs appeal.
In ruling on this demurrer the trial court filed a comprehensive memorandum opinion, from which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weinlood v. Simmons
...no standing to bring an action seeking to enjoin a public official relative to the utilization of the fees herein. In Haines v. Rural High School Dist. No. 3, 171 Kan. 271, Syl. pp 1, 2, 232 P.2d 437 (1951), we "An individual is not a proper plaintiff and cannot maintain an action for injun......
-
Linker v. Unified School District# 259, Wichita, Kansas
...Kan. 510, 4 P. 1017 (1884). 13 Capacity to maintain an action was found not to exist in the following cases: Haines v. Rural High School District, 171 Kan. 271, 232 P.2d 437 (1951); (action by taxpayer to enjoin expenditure of funds voted for one purpose and being used for another); Roberts......
-
McNicholas v. York Beach Village Corp.
...East Chestnut Street Corp. v. Board of Appeals of City of Chicago, 14 Ill.2d 190, 152 N.E.2d 465 (1958), Haines v. Rural High School Dist. No. 3, 171 Kan. 271, 232 P.2d 437 (1951). Although the allegations of the complaint gave Plaintiff Arnstein standing to challenge the ordinance in the t......
-
Bonner Springs Unified School v. Blue Valley Unified School, No. 90,656 (KS 8/13/2004)
...that of the public generally. Asendorf v. Common School Dist. No. 102, 175 Kan. 601, 607-08, 266 P.2d 309 (1954); Haines v. Rural High School Dist. No. 3, 171 Kan. 271, Syl. ¶ ¶ 1, 2, 232 P.2d 437 (1951); Nixon v. School District, 32 Kan. 510, Syl., 4 Pac.1017 (1884); Winters v. Kansas Hosp......