James v. Gettinger

• Decision Date: 20 February 1904
• Citation: 98 N.W. 723,123 Iowa 199
• Parties: A. M. JAMES, et al., Appellants, v. G. J. GETTINGER, et al., Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

98 N.W. 723

123 Iowa 199

A. M. JAMES, et al., Appellants, v. G. J. GETTINGER, et al., Appellees

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 20, 1904

Appeal from Lucas District Court.--HON. M. A. ROBERTS, Judge.

ACTION in equity for a mandatory injunction and other equitable relief. To the petition as amended a demurrer was interposed and sustained. The plaintiffs refused to plead further. There was judgment against them for costs, and they appeal.

Affirmed.

Will B Barger for appellants.

J. A Penick and E. A. Anderson for appellees.

OPINION

BISHOP, J.

The demurrer to the petition conceded facts pleaded by plaintiffs substantially as follows: That the plaintiffs are resident taxpayers and school patrons in Subdistrict No. 2, School District Township of Whitebreast, Lucas county, and that the defendants constitute the board of directors for said township; that at the annual meeting of the board in March 1901, and without being authorized thereto by any vote of the electors of the township, a resolution was adopted by the board directing the removal of the schoolhouse in Subdistrict No. 2 to a point one-fourth mile south of its then present location; that such order for removal was made without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, and without taking account of the wishes of a majority of the taxpayers in the subdistrict, two-thirds of whom are opposed thereto. The trial court adopted the theory that under the law the board of directors had the power to change the site of the schoolhouse at its election, and without authority therefor having been first conferred by a vote of the electors of the district. Acting upon such theory, the demurrer was sustained, and the correctness of this ruling is the only question presented for our determination.

Under the provisions of Code, section 2773, the board of directors of a school township has power to "fix the site of each schoolhouse, taking into consideration the geographical position, number and convenience of the scholars." The present statute does not differ in any essential respect from the provisions appearing in previous codes relating to the subject. We do not think the question presented by the demurrer is an open one. On the contrary, our former decisions make it clear that "the power to fix carries with it the power to change the site of a schoolhouse by the district board." Vance v. District Township, 23 Iowa 408; Atkinson v. Hutchinson, 68 Iowa 161, 26 N.W. 54; Carpenter v. Ind. Dist., 95 Iowa 300, 63 N.W. 708. An appeal from the action of the board in all such cases lies to the county superintendent of schools. Code section 2818. And in a case presenting proper grounds for relief it is undoubtedly true that the power of the courts may be invoked. Rodgers v. School Dist., 100 Iowa 317, 69 N.W. 544. Whether or not an appeal to the county superintendent in the instant case was possible, in view of the lapse of time, we need not determine, as the question is not before us. Moreover, no such action has been attempted on the part of plaintiffs. That the petition presents no grounds for the interference of a court of equity is clear to our minds. The action of the board was taken at a regular meeting, and...