Ketcham v. Bd. of Educ. of Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 201

• Citation: 324 Ill. 314,155 N.E. 332
• Decision Date: 16 February 1927
• Docket Number: No. 17579.,17579.
• Parties: KETCHAM et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 201.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

324 Ill. 314

155 N.E. 332

KETCHAM et al.

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 201.

No. 17579.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 16, 1927.

Error to Appellate Court, Second District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Will County; Frederick A. Hill, Judge.

Petitions from mandamus by William Ketcham and others against the Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District No. 201. Judgment for defendant was reversed by the Appellate Court for the Second District, and judgment directed awarding writs applied for, and defendant brings error.

Judgment of the Appellate Court affirmed.Donovon, Bray & Gray, of Joliet, for plaintiff in error.

D. R. Anderson, of Joliet, for defendants in error.

THOMPSON, J.

April 20, 1920, common school districts Nos. 91, 92, and 94 of Grundy county, Nos. 18 and 23 of Will county, and three other common school districts were organized into community consolidated school district No. 201, pursuant to provisions of the Act of June 24, 1919 (Law 1919, p. 904). After July 1, 1923, the five districts named above were detached in accordance with the plan provided by subsection 4 of section 84g of said act, as amended. At the time this territory was detached from community consolidated school district No. 201, it had a large amount of money in the hands of the school treasurers of the three townships in which the district lies, and in August, 1923, had levied a school tax which had not then been collected, and had considerable school property located in different parts of the district.

After the territory had been detached, the county superintendent of schools of Grundy county organized the territory into five common school districts, corresponding to districts Nos. 91, 92, and 94 in Grundy county and districts Nos. 18 and 23 in Will county before the consolidation, and school directors were elected in these districts. The directors of each of these districts notified the trustees of its detachment from the consolidated district, and requested the trustees to forthwith make a distribution of the funds in the hands of the treasurer, as provided by section 64 of the general School Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 122), and to appoint appraisers and make proper charges and credits of school property as required by section 65. These requests were ignored, and five petitions praying for as many writs of mandamus were filed by the several school boards. The circuit court of Will county held that sections 64 and 65 did not apply to community consolidated school districts, and denied the writs. The Appellate Court for the Second District reversed this finding, and directed a judgment awarding the writs. The consolidated cause is here on certiorari.

[1] The question presented is not free from doubt. If the language of section 64 is to be literally construed, then territory which was formerly a common school district, and which is detached from a consolidated district pursuant to a vote of the people of the territory is not included within the terms of the section, because it is not ‘a new district [which] has been formed by the trustees or by the county superintendent.’ When section 64 became a part of the School Law, all new districts that were formed from a part of another district, or parts of two or more districts, were formed by the action of the school trustees, or on review by the county superintendent of schools. The Community Consolidated School District Act provides other means for creating new districts. It is an addition to the general School Law (People v. Exton, 298 Ill. 119, 131 N. E. 275), and when it was passed it became a part of the legislation dealing with the common school system of the state.

[2][3] For the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, all statutes relating to the same subject must be compared and so construed with reference to each other that effect may be given to all the provisions of each, if it can be done by any fair and reasonable construction. It must be presumed that the several statutes relating to one subject are governed by one spirit and policy, and that the Legislature intended the several statutes to be consistent and harmonious. Where two acts in pari materia are construed together and one of them contains provisions omitted from the other, the omitted provisions will be applied in a proceeding under the act not containing such provisions, where not inconsistent with the purposes of the act. People v. Lukenbill, 314 Ill. 64, 145 N. E. 294;People v. Cowen, 283 Ill. 308, 119 N. E. 335;Devous v. Gallatin County, 244 Ill. 40, 91 N. E. 102,18 Ann. Cas. 422. Many...