Muehring v. Sch. Dist. No. 31 of Stearns Cnty.

• Decision Date: 25 July 1947
• Docket Number: No. 34425.,34425.
• Citation: 28 N.W.2d 655,224 Minn. 432
• Parties: MUEHRING et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 31 OF STEARNS COUNTY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

224 Minn. 432

28 N.W.2d 655

MUEHRING et al.

v.SCHOOL DIST. NO. 31 OF STEARNS COUNTY.

No. 34425.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 25, 1947.

Action by W. H. Muehring and others for a mandatory injunction, compelling School District Number 31 of Stearns County to provide free transportation of pupils to and from its school, and recovery of damages for its past failure to do so. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under M.S.A. s 125.06, subds. 12 and 14, school boards have discretionary power to provide free transportation of pupils to and from school, which power is not subject to judicial control.

2. The duty of determining whether a school district shall provide free transportation of pupils is a governmental one of a continuing nature.

3. A school board has no power to submit to the voters the question whether it shall provide free transportation of pupils to and from school; and, if a school board should submit that question to the voters and a majority of the voters should vote in favor of providing such transportation, the result of the election would be in no way controlling or binding upon the school board, even though the question were coupled with another question which the school board was authorized by statute to submit to the electors for their decision and the two questions were voted upon as a single question.

4. Estoppel will not be applied to prevent or hinder a school district from exercising its governmental powers.

Appeal from District Court, Stearns County; Byron R. Wilson, Judge.

Theodore F. Neils and William A. Boerger, both of St. Cloud, for appellants.

Phillips & Sherwood, of St. Cloud, for respondent.

PETERSON, Justice.

This is an action for a mandatory injunction to compel defendant to provide free transportation of pupils to and from its school, to recover damages for past failure so to do, and for other relief.

The questions for decision are: (1) Whether a school district is under a mandatory duty of providing free transportation of pupils to and from school because of the fact that the questions whether the school district should erect a new building and whether it should provide such free transportation of pupils were combined for submission to the voters and carried as a single question; and (2) whether the school district is estopped from refusing to provide such free transportation of pupils by reason of the fact that the electors voted for the erection of a new school building in reliance upon the supposition that such free transportation would be provided if a new school were built pursuant to such vote.

No procedural points have been raised. The facts have been stipulated. In 1933, after defendant's schoolhouse located in the village of Fairhaven had burned, an election was held at which four propositions were submitted to the electors:

(1) To erect a school building in the village of Fairhaven without providing any school facilities for residents of the eastern end of the district;

(2) To erect two school buildings, one in the village of Fairhaven and one in the eastern end of the district;

(3) To erect a school building in the village of Fairhaven ‘and provide bus transportation for the children living in the eastern end of the district, * * *’; and

(4) To erect a school building in the village of Fairhaven with permission to the residents of the eastern end of the district to form a new district within limits mentioned.

Question No. 3 was answered in the affirmative by an overwhelming vote.

Thereafter, defendant erected a school building in the village of Fairhaven and for 12 consecutive years afterward provided free bus transportation for pupils. Then, at the beginning of the 1945-1946 school year, it discontinued such transportation. Plaintiffs live in the eastern end of the school district. Transportation of their children to and from school is necessary in order for them to attend school. In providing transportation to and from school for their children after defendant discontinued providing free transportation, plaintiffs have paid or incurred expense in substantial amounts.

Plaintiffs contend that: (1) Although providing free transportation for pupils is ordinarily discretionary with a school district, it ceases to be so and becomes mandatory after the electors have voted in favor of providing such transportation; and (2), because the electors residing in the eastern end of the district voted at one and the same time in favor of both the erection and the providing of free transportation of pupils and thereby incurred liability for part of the cost of the new school building, the school district is estopped to deny that it is obligated to provide such transportation.

1. Under M.S.A. s 125.06, subds. 12 and 14, school boards ‘may’ in certain cases ‘provide’ free transportation of pupils to and from school. The power is a discretionary one and not subject to judicial control. State ex rel. Klimek v. School District, 204 Minn. 279, 283 N.W. 397.

2. The duty of determining whether a school district shall provide such transportation is a governmental one of a continuing nature. Unless the rule is altered, so far as concerns its application here, by the facts that the question whether free transportation of pupils should be provided was coupled with the one whether the school district should erect a new school building so as to constitute a single question for purposes of submission to the voters and that the voters by their affirmative answer to the single question submitted in effect answered in the affirmative the one as to whether the school board should provide free transportation of pupils, as well as the one that the school district should erect a new school building, decision must be for the school district under the rule of the Klimek case.

3. Under Minn.Const. art. 8, ss 1 and 3, the duty is imposed upon the legislature to provide a general and uniform system of public schools and to provide a thorough and efficient system of public schools in each township in the state. In discharging this constitutional duty, the legislature may establish public agencies for the purpose. The legislature has provided by law for school districts, which it has constituted public corporations clothed with governmental power to perform the public duty of providing public schools. State ex rel. Klimek v. School District, 204 Minn. 279, 283 N.W. 397, supra; Kramer v. County of Renville, 144 Minn. 195, 175 N.W. 101. The legislature is vested with discretionary power to prescribe the manner of...