Jackson v. Joint Consolidated School District No. 1 and George Columbia

• Decision Date: 09 April 1927
• Docket Number: 27,304
• Citation: 255 P. 87,123 Kan. 325
• Parties: R. JACKSON, Appellee, v. JOINT CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 and GEORGE COLUMBIA, as County Treasurer of Labette County, Appellants
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

255 P. 87

123 Kan. 325

R. JACKSON, Appellee, v. JOINT CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 and GEORGE COLUMBIA, as County Treasurer of Labette County, Appellants

No. 27,304

Supreme Court of Kansas

April 9, 1927

Decided January, 1927.

Appeal from Labette district court; WILLIAM D. ATKINSON, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. SCHOOLS--Taxation--Enjoining Excessive Levy. The tax levy for the support of a joint consolidated school district should be based upon the amount of money which it will cost to conduct such school, as determined by the electors at the annual school meeting, limited by the statutory maximum levy authorized for such purpose; and any levy ordered or recommended by the school board of such district and approved and imposed by the board of county commissioners in excess of the statutory maximum may be enjoined by a taxpayer affected by such illegal levy in an action instituted by him under authority of section 265 of the civil code, R. S. 60-1121.

2. SAME--Taxation--Various Statutes Considered. Various statutes cited and relied on by defendant examined and held not susceptible of an interpretation that they or either of them gave any basis of legality for the tax complained of.

J. A Brady, of Cherryvale, and T. F. Morrison, of Chanute, for appellant Joint Consolidated School District No. 1.

Sullivan Lomax and O. W. Lomax, both of Cherryvale, for the appellee.

OPINION

DAWSON, J.:

Plaintiff, a resident taxpayer of Labette county, who owns land within the limits of Joint Consolidated School District No. 1, comprised of portions of Labette, Montgomery, Neosho and Wilson counties, brought this action against that district to enjoin a certain tax levied on its behalf.

The county treasurer of Labette county, as the principal taxing official concerned in the district's fiscal affairs, was also made defendant.

Plaintiff's real property affected by the questioned tax is situated in Labette county.

At the annual meeting in the defendant school district in April, 1925, the electors voted to raise $ 6,500 for general school purposes, which fact was duly certified to the county clerk of Labette county and a general school tax levied pursuant thereto as the statutes provide. (R. S. 72-406, 72-1005, 72-1031, 79-1934.)

Some ten days later the three members of the school board met and of their own volition "voted" a tax levy of 6 3/4 mills for high-school purposes. The clerk of the board certified this levy "as 8 3/4 mills," and the board of county commissioners partly acquiesced in this action by levying a tax of 6 mills as a high-school tax.

It is the validity of this 6-mill tax levy which plaintiff challenged in this action.

The trial court held the questioned tax to be illegal and enjoined its collection.

The defendant school district appeals, contending that the tax was authorized under the Barnes law (R. S. 72-3001, et seq.), that a portion of a county may adopt that law, and that the action of the electors whereby the defendant district was organized was in legal effect such an adoption of the Barnes law.

This contention is altogether incorrect. While the Barnes law may be adopted so as to apply to part of a county, it is not put into effect by the means by which a consolidated school district is created. Defendant district was created under R. S. 72-901 et seq. And this district was not organized for the purpose of conducting a high school, but for the purpose of conducting a better common school than was theretofore practicable by the separate school districts which were merged into this consolidated district. A consolidated school district in legal effect is simply a common school district, neither more nor less. (R S. 72-905; 72-915.) It is immaterial that the electors of this defendant district may have hoped, planned, or anticipated that by such consolidation the new district would be able to establish and maintain a high-school course or that the legal notices and announcements contained intimations to that effect. And of course there is no legal objection to the teaching of high-school subjects in the defendant's school or any other common school district if it can provide the financial means to do so within the maximum tax levies permitted by law. (R. S. 72-102; 72-1101, et seq.; 72-3008; State, ex rel., v. School District, 112 Kan. 66, 69, 209 P. 665.) The electors of a consolidated school district as such, or the electors of a number of school districts proposing to merge them into a consolidated district, have nothing to do with the adoption of the Barnes law. The legal...