Halstead v. Rozmiarek

• Decision Date: 16 January 1959
• Docket Number: No. 34467,34467
• Citation: 94 N.W.2d 37,167 Neb. 652
• Parties: J. Ivan HALSTEAD et al., Appellants, v. Steve ROZMIAREK et al., Appellees.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 37

94 N.W.2d 37

167 Neb. 652

J. Ivan HALSTEAD et al., Appellants, v. Steve ROZMIAREK et al., Appellees.

No. 34467.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 16, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. If the record of a proceeding before county superintendents of a proper hearing by them upon petitions filed by virtue of section 79-402, R.S.Supp., 1955, establishes that legal voters of the school districts concerned severally signed and filed proper petitions requesting a change of boundaries thereof, the superintendents acting jointly have jurisdiction and the mandatory duty to order and make the change requested by the petitions.

2. It is part of the public policy of the state to encourage the reorganization, consolidation, or elimination of inefficient and uneconomical school districts.

3. This court will when interpreting a statute consider the object intended to be accomplished by it and will give it a meaning which will attain its purpose rather than one which will defeat it.

4. A municipal corporation, such as a school district, is a subdivision of the state created as a convenient agency for exercising the authority entrusted to it by the state, and the duration of the powers given it and the territory over which it may be exercised depend wholly upon the distriction of the state.

5. A Class VI school district is not a 'district affected' within the meaning of section 79-402, R.S.Supp., 1955, by a change made by the county superintendent of the boundaries of a Class III school district to include the territory of a Class I school district by virtue of a petition of 55 percent of the legal voters of the Class I school district and a petition of the board of education of the Class III school district, notwithstanding the Class I school district is within and is a part of the territorial area of the Class VI school district.

6. A school district has no territorial integrity. It is always subject to the reserve power of the state exercised through administrative officer or officers to change the territory according to the current educational needs and good educational principles.

7. A cause of action does not accrue to a school district, as a corporate entity, against a county superintendent for the manner in which he changes the boundaires of a school district.

8. The Legislature by re-enacting a statute adopts the construction which had been previously given it by this court.

9. An owner of taxable property within the territorial limits of a school district, but who is not a legal voter therein, does not have a sufficient interest in the matter of the consolidation of that school district with an adjoining one to authorize him to contest the annexation proceedings.

Beatty, Clarke, Murphy & Morgan, Donald W. Pedersen, Frank E. Piccolo, Jr., North Platte, Roy E. Blixt, Arnold, for appellants.

Baskins & Baskins, North Platte, for appellees.

Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, CHAPPELL, WENKE and BOSLAUGH, JJ.

BOSLAUGH, Justice.

Baker rural high school district of Logan County, a Class VI school district, hereafter referred to as Baker district, is composed of 13 Class I elementary grade school district of Logan County and 2 Class I school districts of McPherson County. The Class I school districts of Logan County mentioned above include school districts Nos. 4 and 5. School district No. 89 of Custer County is a Class III school district which maintains a school of elementary and high school grades under the direction of a board of education. It has within its boundaries the incorporated village of Arnold where its school is located and conducted. School district No. 89 of Custer County, designated herein district 89, and school districts Nos. 4 and 5 of Logan County, spoken of hereafter as district 4 and 5, are adjoining school districts.

More than 55 percent of the legal voters of districts 4 and 5 and the board of education of district 89 filed identical petitions in manner and form as provided by law with the county superintendent of Logan County and the county superintendent of Custer County for a change of the boundary of district 89 to include therein all the territory within the school district boundaries of district 4 and 5. There was no petition filed with the county superintendents of the counties by any of the legal voters residing outside of districts 4 and 5 but located within the other 13 school districts within the Baker district and no list of all the legal voters of Baker district, properly sworn to, was filed with the county superintendent of either Logan County or Custer County.

A hearing was called, notice thereof was given, and a joint hearing was held June 29, 1957, by the county superintendents as the law requires. The county superintendents disagreed. The county superintendent of Logan County on July 26, 1957, found that there was no petition signed by 55 percent of the legal voters of the Baker district filed in the proceeding asking for the change of boundaries requested; that to grant the changes in school district boundaries desired would be to remove part of the territory from the Baker district, to wit: Districts 4 and 5, which would affect Baker district without a petition signed by 55 percent of the legal voters of it requesting such change in school district boundaries; that there was not filed a petition signed by 55 percent of the legal voters of each school district affected as required by section 79-402, R.R.S.1943; that there was no jurisdiction conferred and no mandatory duty imposed by said section to grant the changes in school district boundaries requested; and that the changes of school district boundaries requested by the petitions filed should be denied. He entered an order denying the changes of school district boundaries requested by the petitions filed. The county superintendent of Custer County on June 29, 1957, found that to grant the changes in the boundaries of district 89 to include the boundaries of districts 4 and 5 as requested would remove from Baker district some of its territory but would not disturb or affect its internal affairs; that the Baker district had no interest in the integrity or continuance of its boundaries; that it was not a school district affected by the requested change of boundaries within the meaning of section 79-402, R.R.S.1943, and no petition from the electors of Baker district was required; that the petitions filed were legal and sufficient; that jurisdiction was thereby conferred upon the county superintendents of the counties; that the county superintendents were under mandatory duty to grant the changes in the school district boundaries of district 89 to include therein the territory then within the boundaries of districts 4 and 5; and that the petitions should be and they were granted.

Appellants filed a petition in error and prosecuted error proceedings in the district court of Logan County from the action of the county superintendents and in particular the findings and judgment of the county superintendent of Logan County which determined that the county superintendents did not have jurisdiction to act in the premises because 55 percent of all the electors of Baker district did not sign petitions requesting a change of the boundaries of district 89.

The district court found that the county superintendents of Logan and Custer Counties were without jurisdiction to act upon the petitions of school districts 4 and 5 and the board of education of district 89 because there was no petition signed by 55 percent of all the electors of Baker district residing outside of the territory of districts 4 and 5 and that the Baker district would be affected by the change in the boundaries of district 89 as requested by the petitions of the board of education of district 89 and districts 4 and 5. A judgment of dismissal of the petition in error of appellants was rendered and the motion for a new trial was denied. This appeal tests the correctness of the action of the district court.

There is no issue of fact in this case. The problem presented by it is a determination of the meaning of statutory language. Specifically it is whether or not Baker district is a 'district affected' by a change in its boundaries and a transfer of the territory now within districts 4 and 5 to and its inclusion in district 89. The petitions which originated this proceeding were filed with the county superintendents in May and June, 1957. The applicable statute is section 79-402, R.S.Supp., 1955, and the relevant parts thereof are: 'The county superintendent shall * * * change the boundaries of any district upon petitions signed by fifty-five per cent of the legal voters of each district affected. * * * Provided, changes affecting cities, villages, or Class III school districts may be made upon the petition of the school board or the board of education of the district or districts affected. Before the county superintendent authorizes any changes as provided for in this section, the county superintendent must fix a date for hearing and give all interested parties an opportunity to be heard at such hearing. * * * Territory may be annexed to a district from an adjoining county when approved by the county superintendent of each of the counties involved.' That language not only authorizes territorial changes in school districts but is a mandate that it must be done when legal petitions therefor are presented to the proper officer or officers. School Dist. No. 49 of Merrick County v. Kreidler, 165 Neb. 761, 87 N.W.2d 429, 431, declares: 'When the record of proceedings before such county superintendents in a proper hearing by them upon petitions filed under section 79-402, R.S.Supp., 1955, discloses that the legal voters of the districts involved have severally signed and filed proper petitions requesting * * * a change of boundaries thereof, such superintendents, acting multilaterally and not unilaterally, have jurisdiction...