Olson v. Coalfield Sch. Dist. No. 16 of Divide Cnty.
| Citation | 208 N.W. 154,53 N.D. 575 |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4959.,4959. |
| Parties | OLSON et al. v. COALFIELD SCHOOL DIST. NO. 16 OF DIVIDE COUNTY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Sections 1192 and 1194, Comp. Laws 1913, relating to the establishment and the maintenance of district high schools, construed, and held:
(a) That where two or more school districts join for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a district high school, no one of such districts so joining need possess the qualifications imposed by the statute as to school population and number of schools contained therein; that it is sufficient if all of such districts, taken together, possess such qualifications.
(b) That the provisions of said sections 1192 and 1194 apply only to common school districts, and are not applicable to special school districts.
Appeal from District Court, Divide County; George H. Moellring, Judge.
Certiorari by Jonas Olson and others, electors and taxpayers, against the Coalfield School District No. 16 of Divide County and others. From a judgment for defendants, relators appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
F. J. Funke, of Minot, for appellants.
E. R. Sinkler and G. O. Brekke, both of Minot, for respondents.
The relators Olson, Smithberg, Dalager, and Morseth began this proceeding in certiorari to challenge the establishment of a joint district high school pursuant to the provisions of sections 1192, 1193, and 1194, C. L. 1913. After hearing had, the district court ordered judgment in favor of the defendants. From the judgment entered in accordance with the terms of this order the relators perfected the instant appeal.
There is no controversy as to the essential and controlling matters of fact in the case. The relators Olson and Smithberg are electors and taxpayers residing in Brown school district No. 40, and relators Dalager and Morseth electors and taxpayers residing in Kermit special school district, in Divide county, N. D. Brown school district comprises all of congressional township 162, range 95, excepting parts of sections 3, 4, 9, and 10 of that township, which is organized as Coalfield school district No. 16. Both Brown school district and Coalfield school district are common school districts. Kermit special school district comprises the territory included in congressional township 163, range 95, and fractional congressional township 164, range 95. The three districts are contiguous. The village of Noonan is located in Coalfield school district. The village of Kermit is in Kermit school district. The two villages are about two miles apart. Prior to June, 1924, Brown school district had a school population of more than 60, and maintained four schools. Kermit school district maintained four schools, and more than 60 children of school age resided therein. Coalfield school district maintained one school building containing five separate rooms with a teacher in each room, and more than 100 children of school age resided in the district. The defendants Shirley, Kimball, Nordman, and Stiner are the election board of Brown school district, and the other individual defendants are members of the board of education and the directors of the several defendant school districts wherein they respectively reside. On June 7, 1924, a special election was called in each of the three districts for the purpose of voting upon the question of establishing with the others a joint district high school. The statutes, pursuant to which this election was called, and which must control in the determination of this appeal, are section 1192, C. L. 1913, which provides:
-and section 1194, C. L. 1913, providing that:
“Two or more adjacent school districts may join in the establishment and maintenance of such high school, or for a graded school or for both, when empowered so to do by a majority of the voters in each district, at a meeting called and held as provided for in this section (1192), in which case the building and furniture occupied and used for such high school or graded school shall belong to the districts so uniting and all the costs of maintaining such school or schools, including the wages of teachers and all necessary supplies shall be paid by such districts in proportion to the assessed valuation of the property in each; and the employment of teachers therefor, and the management, control and grading thereof shall be vested in the joint boards of such districts, subject to the approval of the county superintendent of the county in which such districts are located.”
At the election so held on June 7th a substantial majority of the voters in each of the school districts voted in favor of establishing the proposed joint district high school. Thereafter the boards of the respective districts proceeded to take the further necessary steps to establish such high school. Whereupon the relators, challenging the propriety and regularity of the action thus taken, sought to review the same by this proceeding in certiorari. As grounds for challenge, the relators advance two propositions: First, that Coalfield school district has but one school, and therefore is not qualified to establish a district high school either separately or in common with other school districts; and, second, that the provisions of the statutes heretofore quoted are not applicable to Kermit school district, for the reason that that district is a special school district, while the statute contemplates that a district high school may be established only in common school districts.
It is conceded that there were, at the time of the election, more than 100 persons of school age residing within Coalfield school district, so that the prerequisite of the statute in that respect is unquestioned. But the relators contend that there was but one school in the district, whereas the statute requires that there be four. There is no dispute but that Coalfield school district, while it maintained but one school building, had within that building five rooms, each in charge of a different teacher, and each devoted to one or more grades not taught in any of the other rooms. So relators insist that there was but one school in the district; that the statute contemplates four, and therefore, Coalfield school district was not eligible either to establish a high school of its own or to enter into any joint enterprise with an adjacent district to establish such a high school. We are of the opinion that it is immaterial whether the Coalfield school be considered as one school or as five. Consideration of the statutes makes it apparent that the Legislature intended to provide a means whereby single common school districts having the required number of persons of school age and the required number of schools might establish high schools. The requirements as to the number of persons of school age and the number of established schools were imposed as matters of precaution against improvidence and expense. But, in order that the need for such schools might be met, the Legislature also contemplated that, where a single district could not comply with such requirements, or for any other reasons desired to do so, it might join with an adjacent district or districts in establishing a high school, and in such case no single district need have the full statutory requirements, provided that all of the districts taken together possessed them. Sections 1192, 1193, and 1194, were enacted as one section (section 86, chapter 62, S. L. 1890), and, when thus read together,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. Coalfield Sch. Dist. No. 16 of Divide Cnty.
...to determine the validity of the organization of said high school. That action finally reached this court (Olson v. Coalfield School District No. 16, 208 N. W. 154). In that case, this court held that the Legislature had provided two methods for the organization of high schools, one for the......
- Washtenaw Lumber Co. v. Belding