Musick v. State ex rel. Miles

• Citation: 185 Okla. 140,1938 OK 603,90 P.2d 631
• Decision Date: 29 November 1938
• Docket Number: Case Number: 28442
• Parties: MUSICK, County Supt., v. STATE ex rel.MILES
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

1938 OK 603

90 P.2d 631

185 Okla. 140

MUSICK, County Supt., v. STATE ex rel.MILES

Case Number: 28442

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: November 29, 1938

Syllabus

¶0 1. STATUTES--Subjects and Titles--Unnecessary That Title Specifically Mention Every Detail in Body of Act.

Section 57, article 5, of the Oklahoma State Constitution is not to be construed in such a manner as to hamper or unreasonably restrict the Legislature in the performance of its duty. The title limits the scope of an act, but it is not essential that every detail in the body of the act be specifically mentioned therein.

2. SAME--Title to Act Held to Warrant Provision for Election in Connection With Change of School District Boundaries.

Title of article 9, chapter 34, S. L. 1937, examined, and held sufficient to warrant a provision in the body of the act authorizing an election in connection with a change of school district boundaries.

3. STATUTES--Entire Act not Necessarily Invalidated by Unconstitutionality of Part.

The invalidity of a portion of a legislative act upon constitutional considerations does not affect the remainder of the act unless the objectionable portion is so inseparably connected with the remainder of the act that it cannot be presumed that the Legislature would have passed the act without the invalid portion.

4. MANDAMUS--Writ Available to Compel County Superintendent Upon Petition to Call Election on Question of Changing School District Boundaries.

Mandamus is available to compel a county superintendent who refuses to act upon the presentation of a sufficient petition to call an election for the purpose of determining the question of a proposed change of school district boundaries as provided by article 9, chapter 34, S. L. 1937.

Appeal from District Court, Kingfisher County; O. C. Wybrant, Judge.

Mandamus by the State on relation of Cecil Miles against Velma Musick, County Superintendent of Public Instruction of Kingfisher County. Judgment for relator, and respondent appeals. Affirmed.

T. R. Blaine, for plaintiff in error.

Simons, McKnight, Simons, Mitchell & McKnight, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, J.

¶1 This mandamus action Is presented to us on appeal from the district court of Kingfisher county. It involves the proposed detachment of territory now constituting a portion of school district C-3 of Kingfisher county, a joint district located in Kingfisher, Major, and Garfield counties, and the attachment thereof to school district No. C-3 of Major county, an independent school district, including the incorporated town of Ames, Okla.

¶2 The change of school district boundaries is sought to be accomplished under authority of article 9, chapter 34, S. L. 1997, title 70, Okla. St. Ann. sec. 182 (House Bill No. 203, amending sec. 6860, O. S. 1931), which reads in part as follows:

"Territory outside the limit of any city or town within an independent district may be added to such city or town for school purposes, upon petition to the county superintendent of public instruction by a majority of the qualified electors of the territory desiring to be attached to such city or town and by a majority. of a special meeting of the legal voters in the territory petitioning to be attached to the independent district, summoned by the county superintendent, and voting by secret ballot on ballot furnished by the county superintendent, who shall issue an order attaching such territory to such city or town for school purposes, and such territory shall, after being attached, from the date of such order, be and compose a part of such city for school purposes only. * * *

"That if any party or parties should object to the changing of school district boundaries, they shall have the right of appeal as provided for appealing from the decision of such county superintendent in changing the boundaries of other school districts: and provided further, that the boundary of any district shall not be changed in annexing territory to an independent district, or to a city or town, constituting an independent district, so that the assessed valuation of the original district shall be reduced more than five per cent. of the assessed valuation."

¶3 A majority of the qualified electors in the territory intended to be annexed signed a petition designed for that purpose, and presented it to the county superintendents of Kingfisher, Garfield, and Major counties, who were all at the office of the county superintendent of Kingfisher county. The proceeding thus adopted was deemed appropriate in view of sections 6796, 6797, O. S. 1931, title 70, secs. 91, 92, Okla. St. Ann., which provide In part that the boundaries of a joint district shall not be changed except by joint action of the superintendents of the several counties represented in said district.

¶4 When the petition was presented, the county superintendents of Garfield and Major counties signified their intention to act on the same by calling a meeting of the electors in the territory proposed to be attached for the purpose of voting on the question. The county superintendent of Kingfisher county refused to act on the matter, asserting her authority to refuse was based upon discretion vested in her.

¶5 Thereafter this mandamus action was commenced for the purpose of compelling her to join with the others in calling a meeting of the electors in the territory involved to vote upon the question. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court issued a peremptory writ. This appeal is prosecuted to reverse that decision.

¶6 From her brief herein filed, it appears that the plaintiff in error has abandoned her position that, under the statute, she is vested with discretion in determining whether or not an election should be called when the petition contemplated by statute has been filed. Her abandonment of this position, no doubt, arises upon consideration of the history as well as the wording of the statute. Section 6860, O. S. 1931, prior to its amendment, provided for the annexation of territory by order of the county superintendent upon the presentation of a petition, "if he deem it proper and to the best interest of the school of such city or town." This phrase vesting the discretion to decide the question was not carried forward into the amendatory act. In lieu thereof the provision for calling an election was inserted. Presumably the change was made advisedly and with a view of relegating the power theretofore vested in the county superintendent to voters of the area most immediately affected. Apparently the parties, although originally at variance, are now agreed upon this point of construction.

¶7 The burden of plaintiff in error's complaint in this court is that the law is invalid upon constitutional considerations.

¶8 It is specifically urged that the title of the act is insufficient to support the provision in the body of the act requiring the calling of an election. This contention is based upon section 57, article 5, of the Oklahoma State Constitution, which provides in part that "every act of the Legislature * * * shall be clearly expressed in its title. * * *"

¶9 The title of House Bill 203 and Session Laws 1937 reads:

"An act amending section 6860, Oklahoma Statutes, 1931; relating to attaching adjacent territory, boundary changes and bonded indebtedness; and declaring an emergency."

¶10 The plaintiff in error urges that, since specific reference to an election is not made in the title of the act, the election provision is nugatory.

"An act to amend a particular section Of a general law is limited in its scope to the subject matter of the section proposed to be amended. Such amendment ex vi termini implies merely a change of its provisions upon the same subject to which the original section relates." Pottawatomie County v. Alexander, 68 Okla. 126, 172 P. 436: State v. Morley, 168 Okla. 259, 34 P.2d 258.

¶11 The constitutional provision under consideration is not to be construed in such a Manner as to hamper or unreasonably restrict the Legislature. The title limits the scope of the act, but it is not essential that every detail of a legislative act be forecast in Its title. Traders Compress v. Precure, 107 Okla. 191, 231 P. 516; Cornell v. McAlister, 121 Okla. 285, 249 P. 959; In re County Commissioners of Counties Comprising Seventh Judicial Dist., 22 Okla. 435, 98 P. 557.

¶12 Under the foregoing considerations, the title to ...