Heims v. Sch. Dist. No. 6 of Davison Tp.

• Decision Date: 23 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 163.,163.
• Parties: HEIMS et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 6 OF DAVISON TP. et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

253 Mich. 248

234 N.W. 486

HEIMS et al.

v.SCHOOL DIST. NO. 6 OF DAVISON TP. et al.

No. 163.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 23, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Genesee County, in Chancery; Paul V. Gadola, Judge.

Suit by Fred Heims and others against School District No. 6 of Davison Township and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal.

Decree set aside and rendered.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Farley & Elliott, of Flint, for appellants.

Guy W. Selby, of Flint, for appellees.

FEAD, J.

School district No. 6 of Davison township in Genesee county is a graded school district. At a special election, the electors voted to borrow $110,000 on bonds of the district to erect and furnish a new schoolhouse. This suit is brought by forty-one taxpaying electors of the district to enjoin issuance and sale of the bonds on the ground of invalidity of the election.

The inspectors of election were three persons appointed by the board of education. When they had organized and were ready to proceed, plaintiff Lillian Heims offered two resolutions successively, each to the effect that the amount of loan to be submitted be $70,000, one resolution providing an interest rate of not to exceed 5 per cent. and the other 4 per cent. per annum. The inspectors declared the resolutions out of order and refused to submit them to the assembled electors. No amount was submitted to or voted on by the electors present, but the sum on the ballot was that estimated by the board of education. Neither by the record nor briefs are we informed whether the ballots stated an interest rate.

Plaintiffs contend the election was governed in all respects by chapter 12, part 2, Act No. 319, Pub. Acts 1927, Comp. Laws 1929, § 7486, which applies to graded school districts, and provides that the district board and one person selected by the qualified voters present at the meeting shall constitute the inspectors of election; that the district shall determine the rate of interest; and ‘the district board, or board of education, shall estimate the amount of money necessary to be raised and shall state their estimate in the notices of the annual or special meeting, at which the question of borrowing money and issuing bonds shall be submitted to the people; and at said meeting the voters shall have power to ratify by vote aforesaid the estimate of the district board, or board of education, or to fix a new limit on the amount to be borrowed and for which bonds may be issued.’

Defendants admit that the election was not conducted as required by chapter 12, but assert that such chapter had been superseded by chapter 7, Comp. Laws 1929, § 7446, under which they had acted. Chapter 7 provides that the board of education of any district, except primary school districts, ‘may form said district into one or more voting precincts' and, when that is done, shall provide for the registration of voters, shall appoint three electors to compose a board of election inspectors, and otherwise provides for the conduct of elections. A resolution forming the district into one voting precinct had been adopted by defendant board. It is contended that the right of the assembled electors to reject the estimate of the board and to fix a new bond limit was abrogated by this action as the election thereby became governed exclusively by the provisions of chapter 7 because of the language in section 7 (Comp. Laws 1929, § 7452) thereof: ‘In any school district coming within the provisions of this chapter, and having an annual meeting at which all the voters may assemble for the consideration of questions which may come before them, the board of education shall determine what questions and pro...