Hendricks v. School Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 03 May 1932
• Docket Number: 1736
• Citation: 44 Wyo. 204,10 P.2d 970
• Parties: HENDRICKS, ET AL. v. SCHOOL DIST. No. 1, ET AL
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

10 P.2d 970

44 Wyo. 204

HENDRICKS, ET AL. v. SCHOOL DIST. No. 1, ET AL

No. 1736

Supreme Court of Wyoming

May 3, 1932

APPEAL from the District Court, Park County; CYRUS O. BROWN, Judge.

Action by John Hendricks, et al. as voters and taxpayers against School District No. 1 of Park County, Wyoming, and officers of said district to restrain the issuance of proposed bonds of the district, for alleged defects in the bond proceedings. There was judgment for defendants and plaintiffs have appealed.

Affirmed.

For the appellant there was a brief and oral argument by E. J Goppert, of Cody, Wyoming.

The provisions for special bond elections in school districts are set forth at Secs. 2366 and 2294 C. S. 1920. An attempt was made to amend Sec. 2366 by the enactment of Chapter 19, Sec 7, Laws of 1923. The amendatory act was included in a bill containing more than one subject which was not clearly expressed in its title. Const. Art. III, Sec. 24; State ex rel. v. Ellis, et al., 37 Wyo. 124, 259 P. 812. Notice of the election was not given in a lawful manner. 20 C. J. 98; 9 R. C. L. 992; Chap. 71, Laws 1927; Burness v Strong, (Cal.) 36 P. 396; State v. Staley, (Kas.) 135 P. 602; State v. Sengstacken, et al., (Ore.) 122 P. 292. The court erred in overruling plaintiff's objections to the reception of immaterial evidence. The proposed bond issue authorizes a debt in excess of statutory limitations. 2365 C. S. Chap. 149, Laws 1921. Unless a bond issue is authorized by statute, as to amount and purpose, it is void. 35 Cyc. 972, 987, 994; 19 R. C. L. 1018-20; Jones v. City of Camden, 51 A. S. R. 824; State ex rel. Commrs., (Nebr.) 48 N.W. 146; Ashuelot Nat. Bank v. Dist., (Neb.) 56 F. 197; Union School Twp. v. Bank, (Ind.) 2 N.E. 194; Hotchkiss v. Plunkett, (Conn.) 22 A. 535; School Dist. v. Tube Co., 5 Wyo. 185. The purpose of a bond issue is strictly construed. Bodine, et al. v. Johnson, et al., (Okla.) 222 P. 993. A bonded debt can only be considered reduced as to portions thereof actually retired. Angola Co. v. Milgrove School Twp., (Ind.) 127 N.E. 855. Property within district boundaries is chargeable when bonds are issued before the boundary of the district was changed. 24 R. C. L. 566; Dist. v. Hollywood, (Calif.) 105 P. 122; School Dist. v. Hollywood, (Cal.) 105 P. 122; State v. Clausen, (Wash.) 119 P. 797; Cheek v. Eye, (Okla.) 219 P. 883; Mistler v. Eye, (Okla.) 231 P. 1045; Ikard v. School Dist., (Okla.) 223 P. 141; School Dist. v. Crabtree, (Okla.) 294 P. 171; Laws of 1921, Chap. 133, Sec. 3. The limitation for building purposes is 2% of the last assessed valuation. 2365 C. S.

For respondents there was a brief by T. F. Shea and Paul R. Greever, of Cody, Wyoming, and oral argument by Mr. Greever.

There were 636 votes for the bonds and 532 votes against them. The date and place of election was well known to citizens of Powell. Appellants are bound by the theory of their pleadings with respect to notice. The petition alleges specific defects. Having alleged particular invalidities, and confined their brief to them, they are now precluded from urging other invalidities. Statutory requirements as to notice were fully complied with. 2294 C. S. The title of Chap. 19 of the Laws of 1923 is valid. Koppola and Lampe v. State, 15 Wyo. 398; Wycoff v. Ross, (Wyo.) 228 P. 636; State v. Tobin, 226 P. 681; Hynds v. Cahill, 12 Wyo. 225; Town of So. Ottawa v. Perkins, 24 L.Ed. 154. References to the legislative journals were highly technical and without merit. Bank v. Laramie, 25 Wyo. 267; Cheyenne v. State ex rel. Rollins, 17 Wyo. 90. Facts alleged are insufficient for injunctive relief. 10 Ency. Pl. and Pr. 925, 4 Bancrofts; Code P. & R., 507; Parks v. Dist. No. 1, Yavapai Co., et al., (Ariz.) 193 P. 838; King v. Dist., (Id.) 272 P. 507; Shirley v. Dist., (N. D.) 179 N.W. 551. A substantial compliance with the statute as to notice is sufficient. Inv. Co. v. School Dist., (Colo.) 144 P. 1129; Stuessy v. Louisville, (Ky.) 161 S.W. 564; Connine v. Smith, 157 N.W. 450. The voters were fully advised by posted notices, public meetings, etc. Platte v. Com'rs., (N. C.) 121 S.E. 190; Liddell v. Noxapater, (Miss.) 92 So. 631; Beaucamp v. Dist., (Mo.) 247 S.W. 1004; City v. Water Supply Co., (N. W.) 174 P. 217; Mayhew v. Com'rs., (Tex.) 214 S.W. 943; Board v. Woodworth, (Okla.) 214 P. 1077. The proposed issue was within the debt limitation. 2365 C. S.; 6 McQuillin Corps. 66; Kelly v. City, 65 N.W. 115; Stone v. City of Chicago, 69 N.E. 970; City v. Water Co., 119 N.W. 555; Williamsson v. Aldrich, 108 N.W. 1063. It is a well settled principle that bonds may be issued to equip as well as to erect a school building. Maxcy v. Oshkosh, 128 N.W. 899; Morse v. Co., (Mont.) 119 P. 286; State v. Speer, 223 S.W. 655; Comm'rs. v. Company, (N. C.) 101 S.E. 552; Woodson v. Dist., 274 P. 728; McNair v. Dist., 288 P. 188. Acts in pari materia should be read together to ascertain the intention of the legislature. Wilkins v. Dist., 29 S.W.2d 267; 35 Cyc. 851; Hoffield v. Brd., 7 P. 216; City v. Sch. Dist., (Minn.) 41 N.W. 539; Wilson v. Dist., (Mich.) 207 N.W. 810; Crawford v. Brisley, (Okla.) 268 P. 713.

BLUME, Justice. KIMBALL, Ch. J., and RINER, J., concur.

OPINION

BLUME, Justice.

This is an action brought by taxpayers of School District No. 1 of Park County, Wyoming, to contest the validity of bonds of the district, proposed to be issued pursuant to a vote of the people. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendants and the plaintiffs have appealed.

The questions raised on this appeal relate to the notice given and to the amount of bonds authorized to be issued. The election was held on January 31, 1931, and the proposition submitted was whether or not the district should issue bonds in the sum of $ 70,000 for the erection of a schoolhouse and to furnish the same. The proposition was carried by a vote of 636 as against 532. A total vote of 1138 was cast as opposed to a total vote of 1140 cast in the general election in November, 1930. Notice of the election was printed in a newspaper, published in the district, about thirty days prior to the time of the election, and notices were posted on January 17, 1931. The evidence is not altogether clear as to how many notices were posted. Two were posted in the town of Powell and one in the town of Garland. The evidence of the witness Graham tends to show, and he stated positively in two different places, that notices were posted on every school house in the district. If that is correct, eight to ten notices were posted in the district. The testimony of the witness, however, is somewhat contradictory, and the contradictions were not cleared up. A considerable amount of evidence was introduced that the election was the general subject of conversation among the voters in the district for two or three weeks before it was held; that a newspaper contained articles in reference thereto and that mass meetings were held. It was admitted in open court by the plaintiffs "that the bond election was the topic of conversation on Powell Flat (namely, in the district in question) during the time shortly before the election and that not over a dozen or two could be found that did not know of the election." One of the notices posted in the town of Powell was in the window of one D. M. Baker. This notice stated that the polls would be open from seven o'clock in the morning until seven o'clock in the evening, while the other notices posted stated that the opening hour would be nine o'clock. It appears that the judges and clerks of election at Powell were at the voting place about 8:30 o'clock in the morning. The janitor testified that he arrived at that place at 7:30 in the morning and that no one was there at that hour and that the first persons to arrive after him were the judges and clerks of election. So far as appears from the record, no one attempted to vote prior to nine o'clock in the forenoon.

The defendant district is a consolidated district of three older districts, namely one at Powell, one at Garland, and an old district numbered 25 in territory west of Powell and Garland and which latter district had at one time been a part of the Powell district but had been separated therefrom in 1917. Number 25 and the Powell district were consolidated on March 29, 1922, and the Garland district was consolidated with them on June 7, 1922. At the time of the consolidation there were outstanding against the Garland district, bonds amounting to $ 9000, and against the Powell district, including those that were issued when it was combined with No. 25, as well as those when it was separated therefrom, bonds amounting to $ 89,150, making the total outstanding bonded indebtedness against all of the territory included in the consolidated district $ 98,150. There was in the sinking fund at the time of the election as against the bonds issued by the Garland district, the sum of $ 1678.41, and as against the bonds issued by the Powell district the sum of $ 8020.84, making a total in the sinking fund, which amount was kept separate and distinct, the total sum of $ 9699.25, making the net indebtedness, after subtracting the sinking fund, the sum of $ 88,450.25. The assessed valuation in the district was as follows: In the Garland district, $ 1,112,839; in the old Powell district, $ 2,823,406; in the old district No. 25, $ 620,050, making a total assessed valuation in district No. 1 of $ 4,556,295, two percent of which would be $ 91,125.90, leaving, after subtracting the net indebtedness as above stated, the sum of $ 2675.65 which might have been issued by the district without exceeding 2% on the assessed valuation. The school board originally adopted a resolution to expend the sum of $ 1400 for desks, black-boards and lockers, and the balance for...