Mack v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Corning

• Decision Date: 15 December 1925
• Docket Number: No. 37205.,37205.
• Parties: MACK ET AL. v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. OF CORNING, ADAMS COUNTY, ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

200 Iowa 1190

206 N.W. 145

MACK ET AL.

v.INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. OF CORNING, ADAMS COUNTY, ET AL.

No. 37205.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 15, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Adams County; Homer A. Fuller, Judge.

Injunction proceeding to prevent the defendant from issuing school bonds voted at a special election. On trial the district court refused the prayer of the petition and dismissed the same. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.Meyerhoff, Gibson & Watt and John W. Bixby, all of Corning, for appellants.

Tinley, Mitchell, Ross & Mitchell, of Council Bluffs, and Stanley & Stanley, of Corning, for appellees.

ALBERT, J.

On the 7th of May, 1925, a special election was held in the independent school district of Corning, at which was submitted the question of issuing bonds for the amount of $160,000, for the purpose of constructing and equipping a schoolhouse and procuring a site therefor. On submission to the voters this proposition was carried by a very substantial majority. Thereafter the appellants herein instituted this proceeding to enjoin the board from issuing the bonds. One F. O. Akin intervened, and the intervention and the original case were consolidated and submitted on the same evidence.

[1] Section 4195, Code of 1924, provides, among other things, that--

“The president and secretary of the board, with one of the directors, shall act as judges of the election. If any judge of election is absent at the organization of the meeting, the voters present shall appoint one of their number to act in his stead.”

It appears that in the present instance all of the members of the board, in addition to the president and secretary, were chosen as judges of the election. By reason of this fact the appellants urge that the election was void. To our minds this is merely an irregularity at most, and would not invalidate the election, unless prejudice is shown to have resulted therefrom.

In so far as the submission of this question to the voters is concerned and the results determined, there is nothing in the record to show that any prejudice whatever resulted by all of the members of the board acting at different times as judges of the election. We had a somewhat similar question before us in the case of Chambers v. Board of Directors, 172 Iowa, 340, 154 N. W. 581, and there recognized the rule that, unless prejudice of some kind is shown, the irregularity would not invalidate the election. We so hold in this case.

[2] It is further urged that the court erred in not granting the injunction prayed for because the voting of this amount of bonds created an indebtedness on the part of the district in violation of the Constitution of the state of Iowa. Section 3 of article 11, Constitution of Iowa, provides:

“No county, or other political or municipal corporation shall be allowed to become indebted in...