Munn v. Independent School Dist. of Jefferson
| Decision Date | 16 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | 32272 |
| Citation | 176 N.W. 811,188 Iowa 757 |
| Parties | G. W. MUNN et al., Appellants, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF JEFFERSON et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene District Court.--M. E. HUTCHISON, Judge.
THE Independent School District of Jefferson undertook the erection of a new high school building, and bonds were voted and issued for that purpose. A controversy arose over the location of the site for such building, and in that controversy this litigation had its origin. One faction of the citizens of the district favored the site of the old building, while others favored the selection of a new site. At the time this suit was begun, in May, 1917, the board of directors had decided in favor of a new location, and had begun proceedings to condemn for that purpose certain grounds known in the record as Block 34. Thereupon, this action was begun by several residents and taxpayers to enjoin the condemnation proceedings, and for temporary and permanent injunction restraining the district and its board of directors from locating the new building at any place other than the site of the old one, or ground immediately adjoining. A temporary injunction was issued, as prayed, but within a few days thereafter, the court vacated and dissolved the writ, on motion of the defendants. From such order plaintiffs appealed to this court, and applied for an order staying proceedings and continuing the injunction in force pending the disposition of said appeal. The application was denied, and the order of the district court dissolving the injunction was affirmed. The issues joined between the parties were thereafter tried to the district court, which after a full hearing upon the merits of the case, found for the defendants, denied the prayer for an injunction, and dismissed the petition. From that decree, appeal has been taken by four of the ten plaintiffs, and it is this appeal which now calls for our consideration. The facts, so far as they may be necessary to a decision, are stated in the opinion.
Affirmed.
Senneff, Bliss & Witwer, J. A. Henderson, and T. A. Mugan, for appellants.
E. G. Graham, Church & McCulley, and Howard & Sayers, for appellees.
It is quite impossible to state this case with anything like the fullness of detail which marks its presentation by counsel, and keep our opinion within its reasonable limit of space. The abstracts contain about 450 printed pages, and the arguments of counsel are equally voluminous. Appellants' "statement of facts" contains 366 distinct paragraphs. The assignment of error upon rulings of the trial court are 27 in number, and to these are added other alleged errors committed by this court in disposing of plaintiffs' appeal from the dissolution of the temporary injunction. All this is followed by appellees' motion to dismiss the present appeal, which fills 28 closely filled typewritten pages.
Such a record compels us to select for specific mention and discussion only those facts and legal propositions which appear to us of controlling importance and necessary to our understanding of the essential issues presented.
I. It is proper at the outset to expand the preliminary statement of facts by adding thereto the following, concerning most of which there is no dispute:
(1) At an election held on March 29, 1915, there were submitted to the voters of the Independent District of Jefferson two propositions, as follows:
(a) The first question was upon issuance of bonds of the district in the sum of $ 60,000, "for the purpose of constructing and equipping a new schoolhouse."
(b) The ballot upon the second question was in the following form:
This election resulted in the defeat of the bonding proposition, while a very considerable majority of the voters indicated their preference for the old site.
(2) Thereafter, on May 26, 1915, a second election was held, on the question of issuing bonds to the amount of $ 70,000, "for the purpose of constructing and equipping a new schoolhouse," and the proposition was carried by a substantial majority. No vote was taken at this election upon the choice of location for the new building.
(3) Owing to some irregularity in the last-mentioned election, the bonds authorized could not be marketed, and a third election was held on May 29, 1916, at which a proposition for a bond issue of $ 80,000 was submitted, and carried by a large majority. There was no attempt at this election to vote upon a choice of site for the building. It appears, however, that the subject of the location of the proposed building was a matter of much discussion, pending the call for the second election, and that four of the five members of the board signed a statement or circular for public distribution, to the effect that they felt bound by the vote at the first election, and that, if the bond issue was carried, said directors would locate the building on the site so designated. In the campaign preceding the third election, the subject of locating the site of the proposed building was, perhaps, less prominent, but was still the subject of public discussion; and, for the purposes of the appeal, it may be conceded that the directors, or some of them, repeated or renewed their expression of purpose to adhere to the choice of the old site.
It is not disputed that, at all times, all parties to the controversy conceded that, if the old site was to be retained, additional grounds bordering thereon were essential to its use for that purpose.
(4) When the bond issue was finally settled, the directors, in apparent good faith, sought to obtain title to the additional grounds deemed necessary to make the old site suitable for the location of the new building, and to that end contracted for the purchase of one tract, and began proceedings to condemn another. The situation then became complicated by litigation involving the right of the district to condemn the property last mentioned, and by the act of the owner of another desired tract in refusing to carry out his contract to convey it, thus necessitating a suit to enforce his specific performance. About this time, new public interest in the question was excited by an offer by Captain Head, a citizen of Jefferson, to convey to the Independent District a site of 5 acres of land for the schoolhouse, and to dedicate an adjacent tract of 10 acres as a park, without cost or other consideration, except the location of the schoolhouse on the 5-acre tract. This discussion materialized in a petition to the directors, signed by over 700 citizens and voters of the Independent District, constituting a decided majority of the voters, asking the board to consider the question of abandoning the old site and accepting the offer of Captain Head. A largely attended public meeting was also held, to induce the board to change the location from the old site. The board having declined to so act, and having indicated its purpose to retain the old site, certain citizens and taxpayers of the district appealed from its decision regarding the location of the new building, to the county superintendent of schools.
Trial of said appeal before the superintendent was begun; but, before its conclusion, the board of directors and the appellants in that proceeding entered into a written stipulation, reciting that, whereas the state superintendent of public instruction would ultimately be required to pass upon the controversy, and whereas all the parties desired that a decision be reached as quickly as possible, without unnecessary delay or expense, it was, therefore, stipulated and agreed that the state superintendent, Hon. A. M. Deyoe, act as sole arbitrator in the premises; that he visit Jefferson, examine all the sites proposed, and make full determination of the site, and recommend the same to the board of directors and to the county superintendent of schools, as he should deem best, under Code Section 2773.
The stipulation further provided that, when such recommendation should be made, a judgment or finding conforming thereto should be entered by the county superintendent, the same to be final as against all parties to said appeal.
Acting upon this stipulation, the state superintendent did visit Jefferson, and, after an examination of the situation, made a written finding, recommending that the new building be located upon a tract of land described as Block 34 of the original town of Jefferson, and stating the reasons leading him to such choice. Pursuant to the stipulation aforesaid, the county superintendent adopted said choice of location as his own, and designated said Block 34 as the site upon which the building should be constructed. This order was entered on February 27, 1917.
(5) Following said decision, the board of directors adopted Block 34 as the site of the building, and proceeded to acquire title thereto. A part of said block was thereupon acquired by the district by purchase, and the remainder was already in course of condemnation, when this action was begun, May 14, 1917, to enjoin such proceedings, and to prevent the use of the moneys of the district for the construction of the schoolhouse at any other location than what is known as the old site.
The temporary injunction obtained by the plaintiffs having been dissolved, the defendant district, by its board of directors, having acquired and paid for Block 34 proceeded with the construction of the new building thereon; and, at the time of the trial below, about 25 per cent of...
To continue reading
Request your trial