Harrington v. Hopkins

• Decision Date: 01 April 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22336.,22336.
• Citation: 288 Mo. 1,231 S.W. 263
• Parties: HARRINGTON v. HOPKINS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

231 S.W. 263

288 Mo. 1

HARRINGTON v. HOPKINS et al.

No. 22336.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

April 1, 1921.

Motion for Rehearing Denied May 24, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; Alonzo D. Burnes, Judge.

Suit by William R. Harrington against James C. Hopkins and others to restrain the collection of a tax. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This suit was instituted in the circuit court of Clinton county by the plaintiff against the defendants to restrain the collection of a tax of 90 cents on the $100 valuation of all taxable property situated in the Lathrop school district of that county. The trial was before the court, which resulted in a decree enjoining the collection of the tax, and in due time the defendants appealed to this court. The facts are as follows:

The respondent, William R. Harrington, is a resident of the school district of Lathrop, in Clinton county, Mo., a qualified voter thereof, and owns a large amount of real estate and personal property within said school district. Said school district is a city or town district, having a board of education, consisting of six directors. The defendant James C. Hopkins is the county clerk, and the defendant John L. Thompson collector, of said county. The defendants Frank L. Porter, Albert C. Fagin, John B. Scott, E. D. Rogers, Bedford Trice, and Thos. G. Klepper constitute the board of education of said school district.

This suit is brought to restrain the levy and collection of a tax of 90 cents on each $100 of the assessed valuation on all property taxable for school purposes in the district. At a meeting of the said board of education held on the 16th day of March, 1920, it was ordered that a proposition to levy a tax of 90 cents on each $100 of the assessed valuation of property in the district, for a repairing and furnishing fund, be submitted to the voters at the annual election in said district to be held April 6, 1920, and that notice thereof be given. The secretary of the board gave notice by publishing the same in the Lathrop Optimist for more than 15 days prior to the election. The proposition was printed on the ballots, with other propositions submitted, and was carried by a vote of more than two-thirds of the qualified voters of said district voting at said election. The original notice given to the newspaper was for a repairing and furnishing fund, but the printer, failing to proof it, published it as a repairing and "finishing" fund. The ballots, however, had it correctly spelled. The claim of the respondent that there was no legal notice given is based solely upon this misspelled word in the notice.

The levy is attacked by the respondent on the ground that it is in violation of sections n and 12 of article 10 of the Missouri Constitution, and that it was not levied for the purpose mentioned in the notice and printed on the ballots, but for the purpose of paying teachers. A temporary writ of injunction was issued. The case was tried by agreement, on the 17th of June, 1920, taken under advisement by Judge Burnes, and on the 4th of August the court found for the plaintiff, and made the temporary restraining order final, from which judgment the defendants constituting the board of education of said district appealed.

In pursuance to the foregoing election, the board of directors of said school district made and certified to the clerk of the county court of that county an estimate of the amount of money necessary to sustain the said school for the year 1920, which was as follows:

"To the County Clerk of Clinton County, Missouri—Dear Sir:

"We, the board of directors of district No. Lathrop, county of Clinton, Missouri, herein submit an estimate of the amount of funds necessary to sustain the public school for the period of _____ months, amount of cash on hand, and the approximate rate to be levied on the taxable property in said district for the year beginning July 1, 1920.

"This estimate is based on a district valuation of seven hundred and seventy-nine thousand dollars ($779,000), an enumeration of 365 pupils, a total number of days' attendance of 45,077 days, and the services of 13 teachers.

For School Purposes (secs. 10846, 10791, 10796, 10798, 10825):

                 For teachers' fund............................  $12,000
                 Amount on hand................................    3,500
                 Estimate from public funds....................      200
                 Amount under state aid law....................    3,700
                 Amount to be raised by levy...................    8,300
                 Rate necessary for raising this amount, 87 cents
                 For incidental fund (Secs. 10846, 10791, 10796
                  10798, 10825) ................................  $4,000
                 Amount on hand................................      000
                 Amount to be raised by levy...................    4,000
                 Rate necessary for raising this amount, 13 cents
                 For Building Purposes (Secs.

...