King v. Board of Sup'rs of Pontotoc County

• Decision Date: 19 November 1923
• Docket Number: 23665
• Citation: 97 So. 811,133 Miss. 494
• Parties: KING et al. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF PONTOTOC COUNTY
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

97 So. 811

133 Miss. 494

KING et al. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF PONTOTOC COUNTY

No. 23665

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 19, 1923

Division A

(Division A.) January 1, 1920

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Schools and school districts. Statute authorizing organization of consolidated school districts not unconstitutional as violative of due process.

Chapter 124, Laws 1910, as amended by chapter 255, Laws 1912, chapter 196, Laws 1914, and chapter 180, Laws 1916, being the statute authorizing the county boards of education to organize consolidated school districts, is not violative of the due process clause of the Constitution (Constitution 1890 section 14), in that it does not provide for notice to and hearing of the taxpayers of such districts.

2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Consolidated school district cannot be composed of less than two rural school districts.

Under chapter 124, Laws 1910, as amended by chapter 255, Laws 1912 chapter 196, Laws 1914, and chapter 180, Laws 1916, a consolidated school district cannot be composed of less than two rural school districts, and the resolution of the board of education establishing such consolidated school district must affirmatively so show, and if it does not the action of the board in establishing such district is void.

HON. A J. MCINTYRE, Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Pontotoc county, HON. A. J. MCINTYRE, Chancellor.

Proceedings by the board of supervisors of Pontotoc county to validate a bond issue, wherein W. J. King and another filed objections as taxpayers. From a decree of validation, objectors appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Mitchell & Mitchell, for appellants.

The whole scheme of the law with reference to consolidated school districts is unconstitutional in that it deprives the citizen of his property without due process of law. No valid order of the county school board is shown establishing the Hoyle consolidated school district.

It is true that the constitutionality of the acts in question has been presented to this court before and the act held constitutional; yet the question presented in this case, that the scheme is unconstitutional in that it deprives the citizen of his property without due process of law, has never been presented to the court.

When notice of an election to be held in Hoyle consolidated school district was published, these appellants had no reason to suspect that they were in said district, or that their property was involved therein, and before they knew anything, whatever, about their property being placed within said district the election was held and the bonds voted in.

We know of no other scheme where financial obligations are placed upon the people through governmental agencies without in some way giving the people notice of the proceedings, and an opportunity to be heard. We submit that this record shows that no valid order was made by the county school board in attempting to establish the Hoyle consolidated school district.

As implied by the terms themselves, and as construed by this court in the case of Walton School v. Covington County, 75 So. 833, 115 Miss. 117, a consolidated school district can only be created by combining two or more already existing schools. In no proper sense could a consolidated school district be created by simply adding more territory to an existing school, or creating a new school out of part of the territory of one or more other schools and leaving such other schools still functioning. It was clearly the purpose of the law in providing for the special privileges of consolidated schools that there should be a reduction of the number of schools in the establishment of the consolidated schools as an economical proposition.

In order for there to have been a valid order establishing a valid school district, the record must affirmatively show that two or more schools already existing were combined to make the consolidated school.

Fontaine & Fontaine, for appellee.

The county board of education is a municipality, an arm of the government, and is empowered by statute to create school districts, and consolidated school districts without notice, and its acts in so doing are legislative, like a town, or city, extending its corporate limits, which can be done without notice, even over objection of parties sought to be included in such extension, although taxation is incident thereto. Forbes v. Meridian, 86 Miss. 243.

And moreover it has been held by this court in the case of Walton School et al. v. Board of Supervisors of Covington County, 75 So. 833, as follows: "In so far as the constitutionality of the act is concerned, we think, that this court settled the constitutionality of the consolidated school law in the case of Bufkin v. Mitchell, 106 Miss. 253, 63 So. 458."

That county board of education could establish a consolidated school district as well after the first day of August, as before. See State ex rel. Collins, Attorney General, v. Watts, 78 So. 515.

The county board of education at its meeting held on the 14th day of August, 1922, made and entered the following order, to-wit: "The Hoyle consolidated school district was established after examining a petition for same containing the majority of the names of the qualified electors of the proposed territory . . ."

The said order of the county board of education so entered at its meeting on the said 14th day of August, 1922, was a valid order, and showed upon its face all necessary jurisdictional facts.

That a consolidated school district established by the county board of education is a part of the government, a quasi-municipal corporation, has been repeatedly held by this court. And the Hoyle consolidated school district being such, the regularity of its formation and organization cannot be called into question in this proceeding, but it must be presumed to be legally organized and existing, and its existence can be inquired into only in direct proceedings. Dye et al. v. Brewton, Mayor, 80 So. 761.

The organization and establishment of the district cannot be inquired into, even though such inquiry would reveal fraud, which renders that into which it enter null and void, and therefore show that no district had been created. Lincoln County v. Wilson, 88 So. 516.

OPINION

ANDERSON, J.

This was a proceeding under the bond validation statute (chapter 28, Laws 1917), to validate the bonds of Hoyle consolidated school district in Pontotoc county, which bonds were, when said proceeding was begun, in process of issuance and sale by the board of supervisors of that county. Appellants, taxpayers of said consolidated school district, filed in accordance with section 2 of said act objections to the issuance of said bonds. There was a hearing before the chancery court and a decree rendered under said act validating said bonds, from which appellants prosecute this appeal.

Appellants urge two grounds for the reversal of the decree appealed from--first, that the statute (chapter 124, Laws 1910, as amended, chapter 255, ...