Merrill Elementary School District of Tehama County v. Rapose
| Decision Date | 10 June 1954 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MERRILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST. OF TEHAMA COUNTY. v. RAPOSE. Civ. 8621. |
Rawlins Coffman, Red Bluff, for appellants.
C. A. Stromsness, Dist. Atty., Red Bluff, for respondent.
The Merrill Elementary School District of Tehama County has appealed from an order denying its petition in the Superior Court to have declared invalid certain proceedings taken to annex that district with Corning Union Elementary School District. It is the claim of appellant that the proceedings were fatally defective in that the governing provisions of the Education Code were not followed.
The facts are not in dispute. On the 24th of August, 1953, there was received by the respondent Superintendent of Schools of Tehama County a petition for annexation signed by the required number of qualified registered electors residing in the Merrill Elementary School District, hereinafter called 'Merrill'. Attached to this petition was a document signed by the required number of members of the Board of Trustees of Corning Union Elementary School District, hereinafter called 'Corning', expressing the agreement or consent of the signers to the annexation of Merrill. Acting upon these two documents, respondent called an election in Merrill, which was held September 8, 1953. A majority of votes was cast against annexation. On October 26th follwoing, a second petition for annexation, signed by the requisite number of qualified electors of Merrill, was presented to respondent. It was not accompanied by any new consent or agreement to annexation by any members of the Corning board. Nevertheless, respondent treated the former consent as sufficient to qualify the second petition and proceeded to call a second election, which was held November 10, 1953. A majority of votes was cast for annexation. During all of this time no action had been taken by the Board of Trustees of Merrill, but on November 20th that board by a majority vote adopted a resolution declaring itself as opposed to the annexation. It was resolved that the board take immediate steps to establish the invalidity of the annexation proceedings.
Following this a petition was presented to the Superior Court of Tehama County, in which county both districts are situated. Responsive to original writs issued by that court, the Superintendent of Schools, respondent here, answered, asserting the validity of the annexation. After a hearing the Superior Court declared the proceedings to have been regular, annexation to have been effected, and entered its order denying any relief to the petitioner therein. From that order this appeal was taken.
* * *
* * *
* * *
'* * * public school property is held in trust for school purposes by the persons or corporations authorized for the time being to control such property, and * * * it is in the power of the Legislature to provide for a change in the trusteeship of such property in certain contingencies presumably requiring such a change, or, indeed, to change the trustees of that class of property whenever it may choose to do so.' Pass School Dist. v. Hollywood Dist., 156 Cal. 416, 418, 420, 105 P. 122, 123, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 485.
Our Constitution declares:
'The Legislature shall have power, by general law, to provide for the incorporation and organization of school districts, high school districts, and junior college districts, of every kind and class, and may classify such districts.' Art. IX, § 14, Calif.Const.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alta Loma School Dist. v. San Bernardino County Com. On School Dist. Reorganization
...change, or abolish them at pleasure." (Pass School Dist. v. Hollywood Dist., 156 Cal. 416, 418, 105 P. 122; Merrill etc. School Dist. v. Rapose, 125 Cal.App.2d 819, 820, 271 P.2d 522.) The foregoing legal proposition, however, only means that a school district has no vested right in its own......
-
Gogerty v. Coachella Valley Junior College Dist.
...128.) In determining the validity of the act of a governing board we must look to the statute involved. (Merrill, etc., School Dist. v. Rapose, 125 Cal.App.2d 819, 821, 271 P.2d 522.) Section 15005 does not require or even suggest that the school board shall hold a new hearing after the ren......
-
Hall v. City of Taft
...97 Cal. 429, 32 P. 558; Worthington School Dist. v. Eureka Dist., 173 Cal. 154, 159 P. 437; Merrill Elementary School Dist. of Tehama County v. Rapose, 125 Cal.App.2d 819, 271 P.2d 522; see Woodcock v. Dick, 36 Cal.2d 146, 222 P.2d 667; Seidel v. Waring, 36 Cal.2d 149, 222 P.2d 669. The pub......
-
Mountain View Union High School Dist. of Santa Clara County v. City Council of City of Sunnyvale, 17912
...Hammond Lumber Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 1948, 85 Cal.App.2d 568, 571, 193 P.2d 503; Merrill Elementary School District of Tehama County v. Rapose, 1954, 125 Cal.App.2d 819, 820, 271 P.2d 522. The determination by the city council that the territory to be annexed shall be included in the......