King v. Independent School Dist.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1928
• Docket Number: 5038
• Citation: 46 Idaho 800,272 P. 507
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: CLARENCE KING, Plaintiff, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, CLASS "A," No. 37, a Body Corporate, and the BOARD OF TRUSTEES of Said District, Defendants

272 P. 507

46 Idaho 800

CLARENCE KING, Plaintiff, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, CLASS "A," No. 37, a Body Corporate, and the BOARD OF TRUSTEES of Said District, Defendants

No. 5038

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 8, 1928

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS-ISSUANCE OF BONDS - NOTICE OF ELECTION-PURPOSE OF BONDING-STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION-PROVISIONS OF LAW MANDATORY-DIRECTORY.

1. Laws 1921, chap. 215, sec. 57, as amended by Laws 1927, chap. 121 providing that bonds may be issued to acquire or purchase school sites, and to build or provide one or more school- houses or other needed buildings in district, held to authorize issuance of bonds for improvement of school sites, word "acquire" not being limited to obtaining area involved.

2. Notice of school bond election, reciting that proceeds of bonds should be expended for a building, addition, and improvement of school, moving bungalows, improving school site, and for furnishing and repairs, held to state but one purpose-that of providing schools and equipment, within Const., art. 8, sec. 3, and Laws 1921, chap. 215, sec. 14, as amended by Laws 1927, chap. 259, requiring notice to state purpose of election, word "purpose" relating to general purpose for which money borrowed is to be used, not to items of expenditure.

3. Under Laws 1921, chap. 215, sec. 14, as amended by Laws 1927 chap. 259, notice of special school bond election for purpose of issuing negotiable coupon bonds of district in amount of $141,000, bearing interest at a rate not exceeding 6 per cent annually, to mature in 20 years from date of issue, held sufficiently to describe bonds, as against attack made after election.

4. Under Laws 1921, chap. 215, sec. 57, as amended by Laws 1927 chap. 121, providing that bonds may be issued to build or provide one or more schoolhouses, or other needed buildings in district, bonds could legally be issued to move bungalows to make school site available, word "provide" having broad meaning sufficient to include almost any means whereby schoolhouses are made available.

5. Words used in statute authorizing issuance of bonds for school purposes should be given their usual and ordinary meaning.

6. School election on question of issuing bonds having been held under Laws 1921, chap. 215, sec. 42, sec. 14, as amended by Laws 1927, chap. 259, and section 57, as amended by Laws 1927, chap. 121, regulatory thereof, such statutes will be held to be directory unless it appears that failure to give proper notice or to comply with some other provision of election laws has affected result of election.

7. That division of independent school district and designation of polling places was made in 1921, held not to invalidate election in 1927 on question of issuing school bonds under Laws 1921, chap. 215, sec. 14, as amended by Laws 1927, chap 259, and section 57, as amended by Laws 1927, chap. 121, even though under Laws 1921, chap. 215, sec. 42, division should have been made for immediate election rather than in some previous year.

PETITION for writ of prohibition. Alternative writ quashed.

Alternative writ quashed. Costs to defendants.

Geo. H. Van de Steeg, for Plaintiff.

Authority to create indebtedness by a school district and to issue bonds is derived wholly from the statute. The proceedings being statutory there must be a full compliance with the essential requirements. (5 McQuillin's Municipal Corporations, 2d ed., sec. 2361; Bradbury v. City of Idaho Falls, 32 Idaho 28, 177 P. 388; State v. Clausen, 87 Wash. 111, 151 P. 251.)

There is no authority in law for a school district to create an indebtedness by the issuance of bonds for the purpose of "moving bungalows," or for a purpose designated generally, and not specifically, as "improvement" or "improving."

(Chapter 215, Laws of 1921; Chapter 121, Laws of 1927 and Chapter 259, Laws of 1927; Bradbury v. City of Idaho, Falls, 32 Idaho 28, 177 P. 388; Neacy v. Milwaukee, 142 Wis. 590, 126 N.W. 8; Turner v. Roseberry Irrigation District, 33 Idaho 746, 198 P. 465; Brown v. Carl, Mayor, 111 Iowa 608, 82 N.W. 1033; Morse v. Granite County, 44 Mont. 78, 119 P. 286; City of Long Beach v. Boynton, 17 Cal.App. 290, 18 P. 677.)

A schoolhouse may not be moved at all until the question has first been submitted to and favorably passed upon by the electors. (Chapter 215, Laws of 1921, par. 46 (9a) and (10); People v. Cothern, 36 Idaho 340, 210 P. 1000.)

The purpose or purposes of the election and for which the bonds were voted do not constitute one single purpose, but at least four separate propositions, and it was illegal to require the voter to pass upon as one single proposition. (Sec. 3 of Article 8 of the constitution. Corker v. Village of Mountain Home, 20 Idaho 32, 116 P. 108; Ostrander v. City of Salmon, 20 Idaho 153, 117 P. 692; Howard v. Independent School Dist., 17 Idaho 537, 106 P. 692.)

The purpose or purposes for which the bonds were voted are ambiguous, indefinite, uncertain and misleading, and not in compliance with the statute. (1927 Sess. Laws, chap. 121, p. 165; Brown v. Carl, Mayor, 111 Iowa 608, 82 N.W. 1033.)

The election was illegal and, therefore, the bonds are invalid and void, because in bond elections provisions as to notice are mandatory and must be substantially complied with. (18 Ann. Cas., p. 1137, note; McQuillin's Municipal Corporations, 2d ed., pp. 1002-1003; City of Albuquerque v. Water Supply Co., 24 N.M. 368, 5 A. L. R. 519, 174 P. 217; State etc. v. Salt Lake City, 35 Utah 25, 99 P. 255; Coffin v. Richards, 6 Idaho 741, 59 P. 562.)

The election was illegal because the board of trustees did not divide the city of Nampa into two or more voting precincts, as required by law. (1921 Sess. Laws, chap. 215, sec. 42, p. 445; Munger v. Town of Watonga, 106 Okla. 78, 233 P. 211; McCrary on Elections, 4th ed., 161.)

Rhodes & Estabrook, for Defendants.

The board of trustees have the exclusive management and control of all school property of the district and it is within their power and it is their duty to provide school grounds, construct, alter, and they may when authorized by proper vote issue negotiable bonds of said districts; the notice of election must be given by the clerk of the district but no election shall be invalidated for any informality if the election shall be otherwise fairly conducted. (1921 Sess. Laws, chap. 215, secs. 15, 16, 46, 47, 47A; chaps. 185-259.)

The statute requiring the district to be divided into precincts is directory only and the failure of the board to make such division will not invalidate the election. (Weisgerber v. Nez Perce Co., 33 Idaho 670, 197 P. 562; Pickett v. Board of County Commrs., 24 Idaho 200, 133 P. 112; McCrary on Elections, 4th ed., 225; Harper v. Dotson, 32 Idaho 616, 187 P. 270.)

The $ 141,000 bond issue voted was for one common purpose, and the notice of election presented but one question. (Howard v. Independent School District, 17 Idaho 537, 106 P. 692; Independent Highway Dist. No. 2 v. Ada County, 24 Idaho 416, 134 P. 542; Blaine v. Hamilton, 64 Wash. 353, 116 P. 1076, 35 L. R. A., N. S., 577; Hurd v. Fairbury, 87 Neb. 745, 128 N.W. 638; Thomas v. City of Grand Junction, 13 Colo. App. 80, 56 P. 665; Parks v. School Dist. No. 1,22 Ariz. 18, 193 P. 838; Albuquerque v. Water Supply Co., 24 N.M. 368, 5 A. L. R. 519, 174 P. 217.)

The words improving and improvement have a comprehensive meaning but are ordinarily understood to mean a betterment or an addition to or a modification of something. (Van Order v. Board of Cache Co. School Dist., 56 Utah 430, 191 P. 230; Standard Dictionary; Webster's Dictionary.)

GIVENS, J. Budge and Taylor, JJ., and Brinck, D. J., concur. Wm. E. Lee, C. J., dissents.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

Plaintiff seeks a writ of prohibition restraining defendants from disposing of certain bonds voted at a school election in the defendant school district. The attack centers around the notice which is as follows:

"Public notice is hereby given that a special bond election has been called and will be held in Independent School District, Class A, Number 37, Canyon County, State of Idaho, on Friday, the eleventh day of May, 1928, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the district the following question, to wit:

"Shall the Board of Trustees of Independent School District, Class A, Number 37, Canyon County, State of Idaho, be authorized to issue negotiable coupon bonds of the district in the amount of one hundred forty-one thousand and no-100 ($ 141,000.00) Dollars bearing interest at a rate not to exceed 6 per centum (6%) per annum to mature in twenty years from date of issue, to be expended approximately as follows:

Central Building

$ 95,000

Addition and improvement North Side School

32,000

Moving bungalows and improving East Side site

5,000

Furnishing and repairs

9,000

$ 141,000

"The polling places for said election shall be at the City Hall and the Lakeview School, in the city of Nampa, Idaho, and at said election the polls shall be opened at the hour of 9 o'clock A. M. and closed at the hour of 7 o'clock P. M.

"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Trustees of Independent School District, Class A, Number 37, Canyon County, State of Idaho, has caused this notice to be signed by the Clerk of said Board this sixteenth day of April, A. D. 1928.

CHESTER C. MINDEN,

Clerk Board of Trustees, Independent School District, Class A, Number 37, Canyon County, State of Idaho."

In substance the following defects are urged;

1. The notice is indefinite, uncertain and ambiguous.

2. It states more than one purpose.

3. It fails to state the form and plan of the bond issue.

4. The Board failed to divide the District for the purposes of this election.

5. Purposes are stated for which bonds may not be...