Oakland School District No. 17 of Allen County v. The Board of Education of The City of Humboldt

• Decision Date: 10 March 1917
• Docket Number: 20,494
• Parties: OAKLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 OF ALLEN COUNTY et al., Appellees, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF HUMBOLDT, Appellant, and VIDE M. FETHERINGILL, as County Superintendent, etc., et al., Appellees
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

163 P. 800

100 Kan. 59

OAKLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 OF ALLEN COUNTY et al., Appellees, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF HUMBOLDT, Appellant, and VIDE M. FETHERINGILL, as County Superintendent, etc., et al., Appellees

No. 20,494

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 10, 1917

Decided January, 1917.

Appeal from Allen district court; OSCAR FOUST, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. EVIDENCE--Sustains Findings of Court. The evidence shows that the conclusions of the trial court are well sustained.

2. CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT--Attaching Adjacent Territory--Good Faith Required. The first requisite for attaching adjacent territory to a city school district (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 9129) is good faith, and a scheme to secure by the means shown in the record signatures to a petition, so as to add to the taxable property of a city school district, is not a compliance with but a perversion of the statute.

H. A. Ewing, S. A. Gard, G. R. Gard, all of Iola, G. A. Amos, and L. T. Cannon, both of Humboldt, for the appellant.

Altes H. Campbell, R. E. Cullison, Frank R. Forrest, and B. E. Clifford, all of Iola, for the appellees; J. B. F. Cates, of Independence, of counsel.

OPINION

WEST, J.

The board of education of the city of Humboldt appeals from a judgment setting aside its order of October 21, 1914, purporting to detach certain territory from an adjacent school district. The board felt the need of more property on which to raise taxes. A half section of land lying adjacent and in school district No. 17 would increase the valuation by $ 1,452,395, and while it would limit the latter district to less than a quarter of a million dollars assessed value it would add to the taxes of two industrial plants located on the half section $ 10 a day and $ 3 a day respectively. There was not a child of school age on the half section. One family consisting of man and wife lived in a house. Another family consisting of a man and wife lived in a tent where they had sojourned for some time by the sufferance of one of the plants for which the husband worked. They had a daughter who had recently married. August 24, 1914, the board met in special session--

"For the purpose of considering ways and means whereby a part or all of District No. 17 might be annexed to District No. 16, also miscellaneous items preparatory to the opening of school. After considerable discussion it was moved and seconded that the President appoint a committee to interview the patrons of District No. 17, in regard to annexation to District No. 16. Motion carried. President appointed on this committee Wm. Manion and J. M. Lintner and they to secure such help as they desire."

October 21 another special meeting was called, at which time another member was added to the committee. The signatures of the family living in the tent and that of their married daughter were obtained. The manner of obtaining the latter is one of the interesting features of the case. Assuming, without deciding, that they were real residents of the desired territory and not mere transients, it is to be observed that one of the members of the committee secured the services of the family physician of the desired signers. The man, Mr. Achey, who was working for one of the plants, objected to signing for fear trouble would arise, and the solicitors assured him there would be none.

"They said, it wouldn't make us any trouble; if be any, it would be on them and they said the trouble would be on them; they would be in all the trouble if there was any trouble come up.

"Q. What was the trouble talked about? A. Well, the trouble was about us moving or anything of that kind, if we had to get out of the land; I still wanted to work for them when they had more work to do and such as that.

"Q. To what extent did they say they would protect you in the event any trouble should occur? A. They said, they would stand by us until the day of resurrection if any trouble came up, for they would stay with us."

There is no dispute that substantially this assurance was given. It appears that after the employer learned of the signature Mr Achey was ordered off the premises, and on suggesting that he hated to lose his job was told that the way to retain it was to take his name from the paper. The Acheys then went to see a member of the committee who told them where there were some houses they could look at and if suitable to report...