Lyerley v. Manila School District No. 15.

Decision Date06 December 1948
Docket Number4-8728,4-8732
Citation215 S.W.2d 733,214 Ark. 245
PartiesLyerley v. Manila School District No. 15. Threlkeld v. Manila School District No. 15
CourtArkansas 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.

OPINION

Holt, J.

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 (as amended bye Act 235 of 1947), 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: "Notice of hearing on petition. When a petition is filed for the formation of a new school district and the dissolution of other districts, or for the annexation of territory to any district, purporting to be signed by a majority of the qualified electors in each district affected, notice thereof shall be given by publication in a newspaper having bona fide circulation in the county, to be given by the county examiner on order of the county court, and published once a week for two weeks, giving the date of the hearing of such petition. At such hearing the county court (now the County Board of Education, Act 235 of 1947), shall consider whether the petition is signed by the requisite number of electors; provided that for the purpose of determining whether said petition contains a majority of the qualified electors of each district, a majority shall be determined as of the date said petition is considered by said county court, and if it finds that it is, it may grant the prayer of the petition if it deems it best for the interests of the inhabitants of the territory affected. . . . Appeals may be taken to the Circuit Court from the findings of the court on the ground that the requisite number of electors have not signed the petition, or because the notices herein required were not given. The findings of the county court otherwise will be conclusive."

The Legislature of 1943, by Act 271, § 2, amended § 11481, as follows: "Authorizing Publication of Certain Notices. When a petition is filed praying for the formation of a new school district, the dissolution of a district, or for the annexation of territory to any district, purporting to be signed by a majority of the qualified electors in each district affected; or when a school election is to be held for any purpose, the county school supervisor shall, without an order from the county board of education, or any other agency, cause notice thereof to be published once a week for two weeks giving the date of the hearing of such petition or the date of such election."

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:

"WHEREAS, When school elections are called for voting on the question of loans from the Revolving Loan Fund, commercial bond issues, the formation of new school districts, the annexation of territory to any district, the dissolution of districts, and for other purposes, And

"WHEREAS, When the annual school election is called, the procedure for publishing notice of the election varies with the procedure for publishing notices of special elections, And

"WHEREAS, It is felt that a need exists for a uniform procedure in the publishing of notices for both annual and special elections, NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:

"SECTION 1. Notice of Election. The County Supervisor shall give notice of each annual school election and all special school elections called for any purpose 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 the election in some newspaper published in the county or having a bona fide circulation in the county. Such notice shall state time, place, purpose of election, and the zone or zones wherein vacancy or vacancies exist. This provision for notice of school elections shall supersede all former legal requirements as to notice for either annual or special school elections for any purpose and shall be, from and after the passage of this Act, the sole requirement for notice for any school election.

"SECTION 2. All laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. APPROVED: March 7, 1947."

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, as amended by § 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
7 cases
  • Hopkins v. Jegley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • July 28, 2017
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • December 22, 2020
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 24, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 13, 1979
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT