In re Chelan Elec. Co.

Decision Date31 May 1929
Docket Number21625.
PartiesIn re CHELAN ELECTRIC CO.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; W. O. Parr, Judge.

Proceedings for the transfer of territory from School District No. 17 to School District No. 108 in Chelan County, objected to by the Chelan Electric Company. From an order transferring the property, the objector appeals. Affirmed.

Post &amp Russell, of Spokane, for appellant.

A. N Corbin, of Wenatchee, for respondent.

FRENCH J.

School district No. 108 and school district No. 17 are in Chelan county, the first-mentioned school district being a school district of the second class, while the other district is a district of the third class. Certain lands located in school district No. 17 are bounded on three sides by school district No. 108. The county school superintendent of Chelan county acting under section 4727, Rem. Comp. Stat., gave due notice of an intention to transfer this land from school district No. 17 to school district No. 108. A hearing was had findings made, and the property ordered transferred. Appellant, being the owner of the land in question, has protested at all times, and the matter has finally reached this court.

As we understand the record, no question is raised as to the regularity of the proceedings of the county school superintendent in making the transfer. The purpose of the transfer, as we understand it, was to bring more taxable property into school district No. 108.

The property transferred is rough, mountainous country, and there are no school children residing upon the property transferred, and it is valuable largely because of the improvements placed upon the land by appellant. The sole question involved here is, Can a property owner prevent the transfer of his property from one school district to another, his protest being based solely on the fact that his taxes will probably be increased? We think it might be well conceded that the district from which this property was taken might complain under certain circumstances, or the children residing within the district might complain under certain circumstances, but the protest is on behalf of the landowner only.

Our statute provides: 'For the purpose of transferring territory from one district to another or enlarging the boundaries of any school district, a petition in writing shall be presented to the county superintendent, signed by a majority of heads of families residing in the territory which it is proposed to transfer or include, or in case there be no family resident in such territory then by the board of directors in one of the districts affected by such proposed change, which petition shall describe the change which it is proposed to have made. It shall also state the reason for desiring said change, and the number of children of school age if any residing in the territory to be transferred. For such proposed transfer of territory the notices shall be posted and the hearing and appeal shall be the same as for the formation of a new district; provided, that whenever any part of a school district of the third class in which no high school is maintained is bounded on three sides by a school district of the second class in which a high school is situated and maintained, the county superintendent of schools may without petition, transfer the territory of the school district of the third class so bounded to the school district of the second class in which said high school is situated and maintained: Provided, that the county superintendent of schools, shall hold a hearing upon the advisability of said transfer, and shall give notice of the time and place of said hearing to the parties interested, by causing notices to be posted at least twenty (20) days prior to the time appointed by him for said hearing, in at least three of the most public places in the territory proposed to be transferred, and one on the school house door of each district affected by the proposed change. On the day, and at the place fixed in the notice, he shall hold said hearing and if he deem...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • In re Application for Annexation of Common School Districts Nos. 18 and 21
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1932
    ... ... in the absence of a showing of abuse, of discretion on their ... part, which is not the case here.'" (In re ... Chelan Electric Co., 152 Wash. 412, 65 A. L. R. 1520, ... 278 P. 171, 172.) ... While ... in his memorandum decision the trial court construing ... ...
  • In re Consolidated School Dist. No. 25, Walla Walla County-100 Columbia County
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 12, 1936
    ... ... Calouri v. Stratton, 108 Wash. 485, 185 P. 610; ... School District No. 88 v. Morgan, 147 Wash. 321, 266 P. 150; ... In re Chelan Electric Co., 152 Wash. 412, 278 P ... 171, 65 A. L. R. 1520 ... In the ... case here presented, there was but one child ... ...
  • Altman v. Independent School Dist. of Gilmore City
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1948
    ... ... provisions are to be construed together ...         In the notes, ... Annotations, found in 65 A.L.R. 1526, Re Chelan Electric Co., ... 152 Wash. 412, 278 P. 171, the test states: ...         'Sometimes, ... because of the peculiar wording of the statute, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT