Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 47 of Meeker Cnty. v. Meeker Cnty. (In re Sch. Dist. No. 58, Meeker Cnty.)

• Decision Date: 27 June 1919
• Docket Number: No. 21266.,21266.
• Parties: In re SCHOOL DIST. NO. 58, MEEKER COUNTY. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 47 OF MEEKER COUNTY et al. v. MEEKER COUNTY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

143 Minn. 169

173 N.W. 850

In re SCHOOL DIST. NO. 58, MEEKER COUNTY.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 47 OF MEEKER COUNTY et al.

v.MEEKER COUNTY.

No. 21266.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 27, 1919.

Appeal from District Court, Meeker County; Richard T. Daly, Judge.

On petition of Isaac Bay and others the Board of County Commissions of Meeker County detached certain territory from School District No. 47 and formed it into District No. 58, and, on appeal to the district court by Alfred C. Peterson and others, individually, and as members of the Board of Education of District 47, the County of Meeker, respondent, the order was reversed, and from the denial of its motion to amend findings or for a new trial Meeker County appeals. Order affirmed.

Brown, C. J., and Quinn, J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

The board of county commissioners, on petition, detached certain territory from a school district formed in 1911 by two districts uniting. Upon appeal the order of the county board was reversed. It is held.

Under the rules governing the trial of such appeals, the evidence did not warrant the court in finding that the board acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or against the best interests of the people in the territory affected, unless it was proper to receive and consider the testimony of two members of the county board, by whose affirmative vote the territory was detached, that they so voted because of the belief that the union of the two districts in 1911 was void and illegal.

The union of the two districts was an accomplished fact, and the members of the county board and the judge of the district court were bound to consider the same as valid as if all the formalities required by law in the consolidation of school districts had been complied with.

The testimony of the two members of the county board was admissible and warranted the finding made by the trial court. Ray H. Dart, of Litchfield, and F. E. Latham and C. A. Pidgeon, both of Minneapolis, for appellant.

T. O. Gilbert, of Willmar, and J. M. Freeman, of Olivia, for respondent.

HOLT, J.

The board of county commissioners of Meeker county on August 9, 1916, detached certain territory from school district 47 and formed it into district 58. Upon appeal to the district court the board's order was reversed, and court finding that the board acted arbitrarily and in disregard of the best interest of the territory affected, and that the order works a manifest industice to the people residing in the whole territory, particularly to those residing in what now remains of district 47. The petitioners for district 58 appeal.

The School district 47, as conducted since 1911, comprised a little over 11 sections of land, located substantially in a square, with the village of Dassel immediately west of the center line and in the southern part of the square. The five section lying east of a line drawn north and south through the center of the territory comprise what was formed into district 58 by the action of the board. It appears that for some time prior to 1911 there had been a school district 58, embracing the same territory detached by the board in 1916. In it there was and now is an ordinary, comfortable, one-room country district schoolhouse. In 1911 district 47 possessed a modern brick school building with adequate rooms and equipment in which was conducted a full grade and high school, with all the latest courses, such as domestic science, manual training, agriculture, etc. An agitation was then started to induce district 58 to join or consolidate with 47. The result was that district 58 held a meeting, and by a majority of its voters determined to unite with 47. The two schoolhouses are about 1 1/2 miles apart by road. From that time on the officers of the county and of the school district mentioned treated the matter as if a legal consolidation had been fully and effectively carried out. So did the voters; and school district 47 was regarded as embracing what was before districts 47 and 58. The schoolhouse in 58 was not thereafter used for school purposes. Some time after the districts united, bonds were voted to erect a substantial addition to the school building in Dassel. This was done, so that now the schoolhouse contains 22 rooms. The school at Dassel was carried on; but the residents of the former district 58 because dissatisfied with the bus service and the increased taxation going with the maintenance of an up-to-date school, and, by unanimous petition, asked to be detached. A hearing was had before the board, at which both the officers of district 47 and the petitioners appeared personally and by counsel, with the result above stated. On the trial of the appeal in the district court the evidence covered a wide range. Considerable testimony from practical educators was introduced as to the advantages of a school of the kind maintained in district 47 over the one that is or can be conducted in 58; the taxable value of the property in the respective districts was proven; the manner in which the bus service had been carried on, and the condition of the roads were fully gone into; the location of the homes with reference to roads over which the bus could travel, and the exposure of the children to the elements, while waiting for the bus at some distance from shelter to pick them up, was shown. It was also proven in the trial that two of the members of the county board voted against detaching district 58, and that two of the three who voted in favor of granting the petition did so chiefly on the ground that they were of the opinion that the union of the two districts in 1911 was illegal.

[2] From the standpoint of the educational advantages there can be no reasonable doubt but that the best interest of the people in the whole territory affected will be subserved by keeping district 47 intact. And if the district court had had the power to try the matter de novo, or had had the right to exercise his own judgment as to the propriety of detaching or refusing to detach district 58, the correctness of his conclusion could not be questioned that judgment should be entered reversing the action of the county board. But, according to the settled rule in this state, the scope of the court's inquiry is limited. The county board acted in a legislative capacity in detaching district 58. The court could not so act in determining the appeal. The limitation of the inquiry has been fully stated and discussed in the late cases of Farrell v. County of Sibley, 135 Minn. 439, 161 N. W. 152;Hall v. Board of County Com., Chippewa County, 140 Minn. 133, 167 N. W. 358, and Common School District No. 85 v. Renville County, 141 Minn. 300, 170 N. W. 216. It was within the province of the board of county commissioners to determine whether the educational advantages to be obtained in the Dassel school outweighed the dangers, difficulties, and expense the people of district 58 would have to be subjected to in order to continue their relations with district 47. It was not within the province of the trial court so to do. The creation of school districts and changing their boundaries are purely legislative and administrative questions and problems of government which courts do not determine and do not interfere with or review, except as especially empowered.

[1] Under the view of the law above stated a majority of the court are of the opinion that aside from the testimony of the members of the county board, received over the objections of the petitioners, the evidence did not warrant the court in reversing the...