Peay v. Board of Educ. of Provo City School District, 9722
| Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
| Writing for the Court | CROCKETT; WADE |
| Citation | 377 P.2d 490,14 Utah 2d 63 |
| Parties | d 63 La Mar REAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PROVO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 9722,9722 |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1962 |
Page 490
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PROVO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
[14 UTAH2D 64] Nielsen, Conder & Hansen, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Morgan & Payne, Young, Young & Sorensen, Provo, for respondents.
CROCKETT, Justice.
Plaintiff as a taxpayer sued to have what is called the 'voted leeway' school financing program, enacted by the 1961 Legislature (Chap. 104, S.L.U.1961), adjudged to be unconstitutional; and to have declared void an election held pursuant to it which approved additional school financing for the Provo City School District. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiff appeals.
The section of that chapter (53-7-24)--all references to statutes correlate to U.C.A.1953 unless otherwise indicated--with which we are concerned provides in part:
'With the consent of a majority of the electors of the district voting at an election or elections held for that purpose in the manner set forth in section 53-2-12, Utah Code Annotated 1953,
Page 491
any district may maintain a school program in excess of the cost of the program referred to in sections 53-7-22 and 53-7-33 above.'The plaintiff asserts that this statute is so uncertain and ambiguous as to be void because Section 53-2-12, to which it refers, deals only with general powers and duties of the State Board of Education and has nothing to do with the manner of holding elections. This incongruity exists and for that reason the statute as written would be meaningless and unworkable. However, it is obvious that the reference to 53-2-12 is in error and that the reference should have been to 53-7-12. That this is true is apparent from these facts: the other two references in the newly enacted statute are to Chapter 7 of Title 53 which deals with the Uniform School Fund. When this statute[14 UTAH2D 65] in question, 53-7-12, was passed, it supplanted 53-7-8 dealing with the same subject, which latter section was repealed. The repealed statute referred to 53-7-12 at the same spot where the new statute refers to 53-2-12. Section 53-7-12 does deal with special tax elections and therefore does correlate and make sense when considered in connection with the new section (53-7-24) with which we are concerned. The conclusion is thus inescapable that the insertion of the 2 instead of the 7 was in error, and that the intention was to refer to 53-7-12 instead of 53-2-12. We are in agreement with the defendants' contention that in the case of such a patent error the statute must be so interpreted and applied as to fulfill its obviously intended purpose. 1
The plaintiff further argues that if it be assumed that Sec. 53-7-24 refers to 53-7-12 as we have concluded above, it is still ambiguous because it imposes no property tax qualification to vote; whereas the sections it refers to do prescribe such qualification; and also urges that in any event the election held was void because no such qualification for voting was required.
We are not persuaded that the statute in question is so ambiguous as to be inoperable. It certainly can be agreed that it would have been much better to set out more specifically the manner in which such elections should be held. But proceeding upon the premise that 53-7-24 states that the election shall be in the manner 'set forth in section 53--12,' the latter section in turn states that the election procedure shall be as provided 'in elections for the issuance of bonds so far as applicable.' This can only refer to Chapter 10 of Title 53, U.C.A.1953 (Sections 53-10-1 to 21 inclusive) which deals with creating indebtedness and the issuance of bonds for school districts. Whether the correct procedure is regarded as that set out in Sections 2 through 6 of that chapter, which the defendants contend for and purport to have followed, or that set out in Sections 7 through 12, which the plaintiff contends for and which we think correct because it expressly deals with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Retherford v. AT & T Communications of Mountain States, Inc., No. 890464
...Madsen v. Borthick, 769 P.2d 245, 252 n. 11 (Utah Page 962 1988); Peay v. Board of Ed. of Provo City School Dist., 14 Utah 2d 63, 66, 377 P.2d 490, 492 (1962). Consequently, we begin by examining the statute as a Although the exclusivity provision itself specifies only "discrimination," the......
-
Morton Intern., Inc. v. Auditing Div. of Utah State Tax Com'n, No. 900325
...110 S.Ct. at 935. 55 Clover v. Snowbird, 808 P.2d 1037, 1045 (Utah 1991); Peay v. Board of Educ. of Provo City Schools, 14 Utah 2d 63, 377 P.2d 490, 492 56 Parson Asphalt Prods., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 617 P.2d 397, 398 (Utah 1980); Great Salt Lake Minerals v. State Tax Comm'n, 573 ......
-
Zissi v. State Tax Com'n of Utah, No. 890317
...See Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037, 1045 (Utah 1991); Peay v. Board of Ed. of Provo City School Dist., 14 Utah 2d 63, 66, 377 P.2d 490, 492 (Utah 1962). In construing legislative enactments, we assume that the legislature used each term in the statute advisedly and, thus, that......
-
Smith v. Smith, No. 9755
...in 1952. 4 107 Utah 114, 152 P.2d 98. 5 120 Utah 136, 232 P.2d 766, 26 A.L.R.2d 1316. 6 112 Utah 116, 185 P.2d 514. 7 14 Utah 2d 63, 377 P.2d 490. 8 14 Utah 2d 412, 385 P.2d 334 (October 1, 9 98 Utah 170, 97 P.2d 937, 126 A.L.R. 1318. 10 Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S.......
-
Retherford v. AT & T Communications of Mountain States, Inc., 890464
...Madsen v. Borthick, 769 P.2d 245, 252 n. 11 (Utah Page 962 1988); Peay v. Board of Ed. of Provo City School Dist., 14 Utah 2d 63, 66, 377 P.2d 490, 492 (1962). Consequently, we begin by examining the statute as a Although the exclusivity provision itself specifies only "discrimination," the......
-
Morton Intern., Inc. v. Auditing Div. of Utah State Tax Com'n, 900325
...110 S.Ct. at 935. 55 Clover v. Snowbird, 808 P.2d 1037, 1045 (Utah 1991); Peay v. Board of Educ. of Provo City Schools, 14 Utah 2d 63, 377 P.2d 490, 492 56 Parson Asphalt Prods., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 617 P.2d 397, 398 (Utah 1980); Great Salt Lake Minerals v. State Tax Comm'n, 573 ......
-
Zissi v. State Tax Com'n of Utah, 890317
...See Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037, 1045 (Utah 1991); Peay v. Board of Ed. of Provo City School Dist., 14 Utah 2d 63, 66, 377 P.2d 490, 492 (Utah 1962). In construing legislative enactments, we assume that the legislature used each term in the statute advisedly and, thus, that......
-
Smith v. Smith, 9755
...in 1952. 4 107 Utah 114, 152 P.2d 98. 5 120 Utah 136, 232 P.2d 766, 26 A.L.R.2d 1316. 6 112 Utah 116, 185 P.2d 514. 7 14 Utah 2d 63, 377 P.2d 490. 8 14 Utah 2d 412, 385 P.2d 334 (October 1, 9 98 Utah 170, 97 P.2d 937, 126 A.L.R. 1318. 10 Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S.......