Henson v. School Dist. No. 92

• Decision Date: 10 November 1939
• Docket Number: 34399.
• Citation: 95 P.2d 346,150 Kan. 610
• Parties: HENSON et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 et al.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

95 P.2d 346

150 Kan. 610

HENSON et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 et al.

No. 34399.

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 10, 1939

Harry C. Blaker, of Pleasanton, for appellants.

James W. Wallace, of Mound City, for appellees.

HOCH Justice.

This was an action to enjoin the board of directors of a school district from issuing bonds which had been voted at a special election. The trial court refused to grant the injunction and plaintiffs appeal.

Appellants attack the legality of the election at which the bonds were voted. It is contended that the notice of the election and the proposition stated on the ballot did not clearly and fully inform the electors as to the object for which the election was called, and also that the petition submitted to the board was not legally "presented" as the statute provides. The statutes directly involved are sections 72-2001 and 72-2002, G.S.1935.

The essential facts may be briefly stated. It was the intention of the board to erect a school building costing approximately $15,000. Of this amount $9,150 was to be advanced by the federal government and $5,850 provided by the district. Negotiations relative to the federal grant had been carried on but whether such grant was fully assured is immaterial to the issue here presented. In addition to the $5,850 to be provided by the district for the erection of the building itself an additional $650 was to be provided for repairing and purchasing seats, making a total for the district of $6,500. A petition was circulated and signed, and in compliance with the petition the board called an election "upon the question of issuing the bonds of the district to the amount and for the purpose prayed for in said petition, namely, the sum of Sixty-Five Hundred Dollars, for the purpose of building and equipping a schoolhouse." Notices were duly posted as provided in the statute. On the ballots used it was stated that the proposition to be voted upon was as follows:

"Shall the Following be Adopted:

"Proposition to issue bonds in the sum of Sixty-Five hundred ($6,500) for the purpose of building and equipping a schoolhouse."

One hundred and twenty electors voted in favor of and one hundred seventeen against issuance of the bonds.

The question presented is whether in view of the fact that the erection of a school building to cost $15,000 was contemplated by the board, the posted notices and the ballot complied with G.S.1935, 72-2002, which requires that the notices shall state "the object for which the election was called." It may here be noted that in its findings of fact the trial court expressed a doubt as to whether the notices and the ballot met the legal requirements, and it was stated in the findings that "it might be wise and better to hold another election, or at least first find out if the state auditor would register these school bonds." And in Conclusion of Law No. 2 the court said: "2. The Court feels that the notice of said bond election and the ballot used in conducting the bond election were not as fully and complete as the law contemplates, but in conjunction with the detailed statement furnished the electors by the school board, the Court holds as a matter of law, the electors in said School District No. 92, Linn County, Kansas, had legal notice and were fully advised of the proposition to be voted upon in this school bond election, November 3, 1938."

The trouble with that conclusion of law is that the statute makes no provision for curing defects in the notices and the ballot by information otherwise furnished.

No question is here raised as to the good faith of the board of directors, and the issuance of the circular to the electors with its detailed statement to which the trial court referred, indicated a commendable desire on the part of the board to have the proposition fully understood. However issuance of the circular to the electors was not compliance with the requirement of the statute which is founded upon sound considerations. The electors are entitled to know from the notices and from the ballot just what they are voting upon. In the...