Lyerley v. Manila School District No. 15.
Decision Date | 06 December 1948 |
Docket Number | 4-8728,4-8732 |
Citation | 215 S.W.2d 733,214 Ark. 245 |
Parties | Lyerley v. Manila School District No. 15. Threlkeld v. Manila School District No. 15 |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied January 10, 1949.
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; Zal B Harrison, Judge.
Affirmed.
No 4-8728 claude F. Cooper and Gene Bradley, for appellant.
Holland & Taylor, for appellee.
No. 4-8732 W. Leon Smith, for appellant.
Holland & Taylor, for appellee.
For the purpose of this opinion, these two cases are consolidated, (Holthoff v. State Bank & Trust Company, et al., 208 Ark. 307, 186 S.W.2d 162).
No. 8728: Appellees, petitioners below, proceeding under the provisions of § 11481, as amended, and § 11488 ( ), of Pope's Digest, presented their petition, containing a majority of the qualified electors in Milligan Ridge School District No. 8, to the County Board of Education of Mississippi County, asking dissolution of District No. 8 and its annexation to Manila School District No. 15. The Board of Directors of District No. 15 filed petition consenting to such annexation. Notice of hearing on the petition for annexation was published for two weeks, in accordance with § 11481, supra, and Act 271 of 1943.
Upon a hearing before the County Board of Education, the prayer of petitioners was granted and annexation ordered.
In apt time, an appeal was taken, by appellants, to the Mississippi Circuit Court and the cause was submitted on the petitions, proof of publication of notice and testimony of witnesses, and the court found, in effect, that due notice of the filing of appellees' petition with the County Board of Education had been published two weeks, as required by law; that the petition contained a majority of the qualified electors residing in Milligan School District No. 8; that the Board of Directors of Manila School District No. 15 had consented to such annexation, and accordingly ordered dissolution of District No. 8 and its annexation to No. 15.
This appeal followed.
But one question is presented by appellants and that is, -- whether the publication of notice of hearing on appellees' petition, for two weeks, instead of three weeks, was sufficient?
Appellants say: "It is the contention of appellants that the Circuit Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the notice as provided for in § 11481 of Pope's Digest was no longer applicable, but had been amended by Act 202 of 1947, requiring 3 weeks' publication instead of two."
Publication of notice as required by statute is a prerequisite to jurisdiction. Sugar Grove School District No. 19 v. Booneville Special School District No. 65, 208 Ark. 722, 187 S.W.2d 339.
Here, as indicated, appellees sought dissolution of School District No. 8 and its annexation to Manila School District No. 15, by submitting to the County Board of Education of Mississippi County, a petition containing a majority of the qualified electors of District No. 8, instead of pursuing the election method. Either method was accorded them under the provisions of § 11488, supra, as amended by Act 235 of 1947, as follows: "The County Board of Education may dissolve any school district and annex the territory thereof to any district within the county when petitioned to do so by a majority of the qualified electors of the district to be dissolved, or by an election held in the district to be dissolved where a majority of the votes cast are in favor of the dissolution and annexation, and upon the consent of the board of directors of the district to which the territory is to be annexed."
Appellants do not question appellees' right to proceed by the petition method, but their contention is that appellees were required to give three weeks' published notice of the filing of the petition "and the date of hearing thereon" before the County Board of Education, and argue that § 11481, as amended by Act 202 of 1947, requires such three weeks' published notice. Section 11481, supra, provides:
The Legislature of 1943, by Act 271, § 2, amended § 11481, as follows:
It will be observed that the word "election" was not mentioned in § 11481 until the 1943 amendment. In 1947, the Legislature enacted Act 202, as follows: "AN ACT to Amend § 6 of Act 327 of 1941; § 2 of Act 271 of 1943; and §§ 11553, 11481, 11515, and 11525 of Pope's Digest to Set Up a Uniform Procedure in the Method of Publication of Notices of Either Annual or Special School Elections:
Appellants insist that this latter act so amended § 11481 as to require three weeks' published notice in the present case instead of two. We cannot agree.
The very purpose of this act, as stated in the title, is to set up "a uniform procedure in the method of publication of notices of either annual or special school elections." The word "petition" is not even mentioned in the act.
The act provides that when the election method is followed, whether annual or special, notice of such election must be given "by publication once each week for three (3) consecutive weeks, the last of which shall be not less than twenty (20) days preceding the date of election, etc." "Such notice shall state time, place, purpose of election," but, say appellants, one of the purposes of Act 202 was to amend § 11481, as stated in the title of Act 202. Other than in the title, there is absolutely nothing in the remainder of the act, consisting of the three paragraphs of the preamble, and §§ 1 and 2 of the act, to indicate that the Legislature had in mind any method other than the general or special election method. Nowhere in this act is the petition method referred to. While we may look to the title of an act only for the purpose of throwing light upon the intent of the Legislature in passing it, we think by setting out in the title of Act 202 that one of its purposes was to amend § 11481, the Legislature properly had in mind § 11481, § 2 of Act 271 of 1943 supra, which amendment after its effective date required only two weeks' published notice, regardless of whether the petition method or the election method was pursued by the petitioners for dissolution and annexation of a school...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hopkins v. Jegley
...examine the title of an act only for the purpose of shedding light on the intent of the General Assembly. Lyerley v. Manila School District No. 15 , 214 Ark. 245, 215 S.W.2d 733 (1948). Henderson , 589 S.W.2d at 568.In Henderson , acknowledging that controlling law, the Supreme Court of Ark......
-
Hopkins v. Jegley
...examine the title of an act only for the purpose of shedding light on the intent of the General Assembly. Lyerley v. Manila School District No. 15 , 214 Ark. 245, 215 S.W.2d 733 (1948). Henderson , 589 S.W.2d at 568.In Henderson , acknowledging that controlling law, the Supreme Court of Ark......
-
McMillan v. Live Nation Entm't, Inc.
...400, 201 S.W.3d 900, 907 (2005); Henderson v. Russell, 267 Ark. 140, 145, 589 S.W.2d 565, 568 (1979); Lyerley v. Manila Sch. Dist. No. 15, 214 Ark. 245, 250, 215 S.W.2d 733, 736 (1948). The title and descriptive headings are cited to reveal the intent of the General Assembly. ...
-
Henderson v. Russell
...examine the title of an act only for the purpose of shedding light on the intent of the General Assembly. Lyerley v. Manila School District No. 15, 214 Ark. 245, 215 S.W.2d 733 (1948). Ark.Stat.Ann. § 17-4005(4) (Supp.1977) Readings and Publications (Publication). An emergency measure does ......