In re Formation of Common School Dist.
| Decision Date | 27 July 1931 |
| Docket Number | 6890. |
| Citation | 237 N.W. 763,58 S.D. 538 |
| Parties | In re FORMATION OF COMMON SCHOOL DIST. WENTZ et al. v. BOWDLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. OF BOWDLE et al. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Edmunds County; J. H. Bottum, Judge.
Petition by George Wentz and others to organize and form a common school district from territory embraced within the Independent School District of Bowdle, being School District No. 9 of Edmunds County, to which the Bowdle Independent School District of Bowdle, by its board of education and others similarly interested, filed objections. From a judgment denying the petition and from an order overruling a motion for new trial, petitioners appeal.
Reversed.
Campbell & Fletcher and Ezra L. Baker, all of Aberdeen, for appellants.
H. L Woodworth, of Ipswich, and F. E. Snider, of Faulkton, for respondents.
A petition was filed with the clerk of the circuit court of Edmunds county, in compliance with the provisions of chapter 175, Laws of 1923, to organize and form a common school district from territory embraced within independent school district of Bowdle, being school district No. 9 of Edmunds county, S.D. The petition was in due form and had the requisite number of qualified signers, with a plat attached and requested the formation of the new district in accordance with the plat. The proposed new district embraced the required territory, and that portion of the old district which the petition proposed to leave contained the incorporated town of Bowdle, which maintained a high school and contained property of an assessed valuation of an amount exceeding $500,000. Due notice was given and a hearing was had as provided by law and the court rendered judgment denying the petition and ordering transportation of pupils. The petitioners appeal from the judgment and order overruling a motion for a new trial. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the petition or any of the proceedings prior to the hearing.
The question here presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition. Chapter 175 of the Laws of 1923 under which this proceeding is instituted provides as follows: "The [circuit] court shall have full authority, by order, to fix and determine and shall by order fix and determine the boundaries of the districts affected, either as designated in the petition or as subsequently modified and shall have authority to refuse the petition, if in the judgment of the court, the interests of the district or districts should so require." Section 1. This law has been held constitutional by this court. Larsen v. Seneca Ind. School Dist. of Faulk County, 50 S.D. 444, 210 N.W. 661. In re Common School Dist. of Highmore, 54 S.D. 146, 222 N.W. 690. The law vests in the court administrative power quasi judicial in its nature. Larsen v. Seneca Ind. School Dist., supra. This power vested in the trial court by this statute is a power to be exercised in the sound discretion of the trial court. There can be no precise rule by which to determine what considerations should control the final judgment, but each case must rest upon its own facts and the sound discretion of the trial court.
Among other facts the court found that three rural schools were being maintained in the district in addition to a grade school and high school in the city of Bowdle. That the school building in Bowdle was a modern up-to-date building, and that the rural schools were old, not modern, and in only fair condition; that in the Bowdle schools a teacher was employed for each grade, and this offered a greater educational opportunity than the rural schools in which one teacher teaches all eight grades. That no transportation to the Bowdle school for the pupils attending the rural schools had been furnished since 1920, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial