Howard v. Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Nez Perce County

• Decision Date: 13 January 1910
• Citation: 17 Idaho 537,106 P. 692
• Parties: L. B. HOWARD, Appellant, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF NEZ PERCE COUNTY, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

106 P. 692

17 Idaho 537

L. B. HOWARD, Appellant, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF NEZ PERCE COUNTY, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 13, 1910

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-LOCAL AND SPECIAL LAWS-EDUCATIONAL CORPORATIONS-INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT-BONDING SCHOOL DISTRICTS-PURPOSE OF BOND ELECTION-NOTICE OF BOND ELECTION.

1. The act of Congress organizing Idaho as a territory did not prohibit the territorial legislature enacting special or local laws for the organization of school districts.

2. The act of Dec. 30, 1880 (11 Terr. Sess. Laws, p. 408), and the subsequent territorial amendments thereto, were not repugnant to, or in conflict with, the constitution of the state of Idaho subsequently adopted and approved by the people, and were not abrogated or repealed by the constitution.

3. Under the provisions of sec. 2, art. 11 of the constitution the legislature has the right to extend, change, or amend by special law the charter of any "educational corporation" which existed in the state at the time of the adoption of the constitution and which is under the control of the state.

4. An independent school district, created and organized under special charter from the territorial legislature, is as fully an "educational corporation" under the control of the state within the purview of sec. 2, art. 11 of the constitution as is any other educational corporation within the state.

5. The mere fact of the existence of an independent school district under special charter granted by the territorial legislature does not render the special act or charter under which it exists obnoxious to the uniformity requirement of the state constitution.

6. Under the provisions of sec. 3 of art. 8 of the constitution and sec. 33 of the 1909 amendments to the charter of Independent School District No. 1 of Nez Perce county organized under act of Dec. 30, 1880 (Special and Local Laws p. 166), the voting of bonds for the purpose of raising money to purchase three separate and independent school sites and the building of three separate buildings and purchasing fixtures and furniture therefor, is one "purpose," and is properly submitted as one proposition.

7. Where the title to an amendatory act refers to an educational corporation as "Independent School District No. 1 of Nez Perce county, Idaho," and the body of the act itself designates and creates the corporation as "Independent District No. 1 of Nez Perce county, Idaho," the omission of the word "school" in the name of the corporation in the body of the act is an immaterial variance, and does not defeat the purpose and object of the statute.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, for Nez Perce County. Hon Edgar C. Steele, Judge.

Action by plaintiff to enjoin and restrain the sale of school bonds. Judgment for the defendant and plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Eugene A. Cox, for Appellant.

The election for the issuance of these bonds was void for the reason that the election was called for the purpose of submitting at one time several distinct and independent propositions. The notice of election specifies these several propositions, and the electors were not permitted to vote upon each several distinct and independent proposition, but were compelled to vote yes or no upon all of the matters submitted. (Board of Supervisors v. R. Co., 21 Ill. 338; State ex rel. City of Bethany v. Allen, 186 Mo. 673, 85 S.W. 531; Village of Hempstead v. Seymour, 34 Misc. 92, 69 N.Y.S. 462.)

Fred E. Butler, for Respondent.

The respondent is an "educational corporation," and within the exception of sec. 2, art. 2 of the constitution. (Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393, 83 P. 234; Wiggin v. Lewiston, 8 Idaho 527, 69 P. 286; McGilvery v. Lewiston, 13 Idaho 338, 90 P. 348; Boise City Nat. Bank v. Boise, 15 Idaho 792, 100 P. 93.)

The question submitted to the voters at the special election was one single and entire proposition. It was whether or not the board should issue bonds of the district in the sum of $ 55,000 for the purpose of providing schoolhouses and grounds for the district. The location, size and other detail of construction is entirely within the discretion of the board of directors, and when that discretion has been exercised, courts invariably refuse to interfere. (Parker v. Concord, 71 N.H. 468, 52 A. 1095; Trigally v. Memphis, 6 Coldw. 389; Milne v. Davidson, 5 Mart., N. S. (La.), 409, 16 Am. Dec. 189, and note; State v. Williams, 11 S.C. 291; also note in 1 L. R. A. 169; Hubbard v. Woodsum, 87 Me. 88, 32 A. 802; Hamilton v. Village of Detroit, 83 Minn. 119, 85 N.W. 933.)

AILSHIE, J. Sullivan, C. J., and Stewart, J., concur.

OPINION

AILSHIE, J.

This action was instituted in the lower court by the plaintiff, as a taxpayer of Independent School District No. 1 of Nez Perce county, to restrain the officers of the school district from issuing and selling bonds of the district in the sum of $ 55,000, for the purpose of purchasing three tracts of land in different sections of the school district for school grounds, and for the purpose of erecting and furnishing three school buildings thereon. The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint and dismissed the action and the plaintiff has appealed.

The Independent School District, comprising the city of Lewiston, was created by an act of the territorial legislature approved December 30, 1880 (11 Terr. Sess. Laws, p. 408). This act was successively amended as follows: February 7, 1883 (12 Terr. Sess. Laws, p. 154); January 22, 1885 (13 Terr. Sess. Laws, p. 195); February 5, 1885 (13 Terr. Sess. Laws, p. 196); and March 6, 1909 (1909 Sess. Laws, p. 43). The proceedings taken by the trustees of the school district are under the amendment of 1909. The board called an election for the purpose of voting on the proposition to issue the bonds of the district in the sum of $ 55,000. The notice of election recites, among other things, that the election is called for the following purposes:

"For the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of said district, who are resident taxpayers therein, the question and proposition of authorizing the board of directors of said independent district to issue the negotiable coupon bonds of said district in the sum of fifty-five thousand ($ 55,000) dollars, payable in gold coin of the present standard of weight and fineness. . . .

"That the proceeds from the sale of such bonds shall be devoted exclusively for the purpose of providing said district with additional schoolhouse grounds and erecting a schoolhouse thereon near the site of the present high school building in the city of Lewiston at an estimated cost of $ 40,000; and for the purpose of providing said district with additional schoolhouse grounds and erecting a four-room schoolhouse thereon near Ninth avenue and Twenty-sixth street, in the city of Lewiston, at an estimated cost of $ 12,000 (said schoolhouse to be erected in such a manner that additional rooms may be added thereto whenever the necessities therefor may require without materially damaging such building), and for the purpose of providing said district with additional schoolhouse grounds and erecting a two-room schoolhouse thereon, in one of the Lewiston Orchard Tracts, at an estimated cost of $ 3,000; and for the purpose of furnishing each of said school buildings with proper and necessary furniture, apparatus and fixtures."

The vote on the proposition submitted was favorable to the issuance of the bonds, and all proceedings have been taken necessary for the issuance and sale of the bonds, and it appears that the district is now about to deliver the bonds to the purchaser.

It is first contended by the appellant that the act of December 30, 1880, incorporating the Independent School District, comprising the city of Lewiston, became unconstitutional and void upon the admission of the state into the Union, for the reason that it was in violation of the provisions of sec. 1 of art. 9 of the state constitution, and for the further reason that it was in violation of the provisions of sec. 19 of art. 3. The above-mentioned provisions of the constitution are as follows:

Sec. 1, art. 9: "The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools."

Sec. 19, art. 3: "The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: . . . .

"Providing for the management of common schools.

"Creating offices or prescribing the powers and duties of officers in counties, cities, townships, election districts or school districts, except as in this constitution otherwise provided. . . ."

It was unquestionably within the power of the territorial legislature to grant a special charter to Independent School District No. 1 of Nez Perce county. "Under the organic act of the territory, the enactment of special laws was not prohibited." (Butler v. City of Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393, 83 P. 234; Wiggin v. Lewiston, 8 Idaho 527, 69 P. 286.) The only question to be considered here is Did the constitution have the effect of repealing or abrogating the special charter granted by the territorial legislature to the respondent corporation? In answering this inquiry, we turn to sec. 2, art. 21, of the constitution and find that it provides as follows: "All laws now in force in the territory of Idaho which are not repugnant to this constitution shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation or be altered or repealed by the legislature. " Preceding the foregoing provision of the constitution...