Petrie v. E. Thorsell

• Decision Date: 29 March 1927
• Docket Number: 4475
• Citation: 255 P. 318,44 Idaho 92
• Parties: DAVID C. PETRIE, R. W. BESECKER, v. E. THORSELL, L. N. B. CARPENTER and LAFE BOONE, Respondents, v. COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 5, IN ADA COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO, C. C. HINKSON, G. F. RENSHAW, E. H. COFFIN, as Trustees of Said COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 5, and LURA v. PAINE, as County Superintendent of Public Instruction of Ada County, State of Idaho, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

255 P. 318

44 Idaho 92

DAVID C. PETRIE, R. W. BESECKER, v. E. THORSELL, L. N. B. CARPENTER and LAFE BOONE, Respondents, v. COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 5, IN ADA COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO, C. C. HINKSON, G. F. RENSHAW, E. H. COFFIN, as Trustees of Said COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 5, and LURA v. PAINE, as County Superintendent of Public Instruction of Ada County, State of Idaho, Appellants

No. 4475

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 29, 1927

APPEAL AND ERROR-APPEAL ON JUDGMENT-ROLL-EXTENT OF REVIEW-SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS-PUBLIC SCHOOLS-ANNUAL SCHOOL MEETING-FUNCTIONS-ATTEMPTED LEVY OF SPECIAL TAX HELD UNAUTHORIZED-CONTRACT FOR SCHOOLHOUSE ADDITION HELD VOID.

1. Where appeal is on judgment-roll alone, the only question for determination is whether the judgment in case tried by court is supported by the findings.

2. Under Laws 1921, chap. 215, secs. 14, 16, 18, 42, 45, sec 44, amended by Laws 1923, chap. 21, and sec. 50, amended by Laws 1923, chap. 169, relative to school elections, the annual school meeting is empowered to exercise functions of a de- liberative assembly at which qualified electors of common school districts may discuss and dispose of general questions pertaining to the school and its interests.

3. Attempted levy by trustees of school district of special tax pursuant to meeting, wherein trustees prevented the organization of such meeting as a deliberative assembly, as required by Laws 1921, chap. 215, secs. 14, 16, 18, 42, 45, sec. 44, amended by Laws 1923, chap. 21 and sec. 50 amended by Laws 1923, chap. 169, held unauthorized, and contract for construction of addition to schoolhouse and furniture to be paid by such special tax void, in view of Const., art. 8 sec. 3, forbidding school districts from incurring indebtedness in excess of income provided.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Dana E. Brinck, Judge.

Action for injunction. Void tax levy. Judgment for defendants. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed; costs to respondents.

Delana & Delana, for Appellants.

Even though a statute requires separate ballot, one or more propositions may be submitted on the same ballot if each proposition is separately stated and the voter is given an opportunity to vote for or against each proposition separately. (In re Arnold, 66 N.Y.S. 557; 20 C. J. p. 149, sec. 178, notes 7-9.)

Where propositions are to be voted upon at an election, the propositions need not be printed in full on the ballot. ( State v. Gordon, 231 Mo. 547, 133 S.W. 44, at 46; State v. Stearnes, 72 Minn. 200, 75 N.W. 210, at 215; Hubbard v. Woodum, 87 Me. 88, 32 A. 802, at 815; Lovett v. Ferguson, 10 S.D. 44, 71 N.W. 765; Williams v. Shoudy, 12 Wash. 362, 41 P. 169; Kinney v. Howard, 133 Iowa 94, 110 N.W. 282; State v. Winnett, 78 Neb. 379, 15 Ann. Cas. 781, 110 N.W. 1113, 10 L. R. A., N. S., 149.)

Voters may be compelled to vote upon a number of different items as a whole, providing the different items are included within one purpose and constitute a single proposition. (Howard v. Independent School Dist., 17 Idaho 537, 106 P. 692; State v. Gordon, supra; Board of Education v. Woodworth, 89 Okla. 192, 214 P. 1077; People v. Counts, 89 Cal. 15, 26 P. 612; City of Oakland v. Thompson, 151 Cal. 572, 91 P. 387; Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 160 Cal. 317, 116 P. 966; Coleman v. Town of Eutaw, 157 Ala. 327, 47 So. 703; Mitchell v. Charles City, 169 Iowa 237, 148 N.W. 975.)

The rule as to what constitutes a single purpose or proposition is much more liberal when applied to school district elections. (State v. Gordon, supra; Board of Education v. Woodworth, supra.)

If there is a semblance of a fair vote, the result of the election should be upheld, regardless of informalities or irregularities. (Cooley on Taxation, pp. 573, 574; Sizemore v. Board of County Commrs., 36 Idaho 184, 210 P. 137; Weisgerber v. Nez Perce County, 33 Idaho 670, 197 P. 562; School Laws, 1921 Session, p. 436; Huffaker v. Edgington, 30 Idaho 179, 163 P. 793.)

The annual or general meeting is an election. (1921 Sess. Laws, sec. 14, p. 435; secs. 16, 17, p. 436; sec. 18, p. 437; sec. 44, p. 446; Regan v. School District, 44 Wash. 523, 87 P. 828; Behrens v. Bechtel, 131 Wash. 508, 230 P. 426.)

Martin & Martin, for Respondents.

The annual meeting in common school districts, provided for by the laws of Idaho, is a deliberative body charged with the duty of considering and determining certain matters, by collective action, and not an election. (Sess. Laws 1921, pp. 435-437, 445, 446, 456; Sess. Laws 1923, pp. 21, 254; Behrens v. Bechtel, 131 Wash. 508, 230 P. 426; Parker v. School Dist. No. 4, Sweetwater Co., 17 Wyo. 534, 101 P. 944; Commercial State Bank v. School Dist. No. 3, 225 Mich. 656, 196 N.W. 373; Jennings v. Clearwater School Dist., 65 Cal.App. 102, 223 P. 84; State ex rel. Reinhardt v. Talich, 112 Neb. 723, 201 N.W. 144.)

Where a statute provides for the levying of a special tax, all requirements of the statute in regard to the making of such levy must be strictly followed. (Bramwell v. Guheen, 3 Idaho 347, 29 P. 110; Petrie v. Common School Dist. No. 5, 38 Idaho 583, 223 P. 535; Ashley v. Richards, 32 Idaho 551, 185 P. 1076; Goerdt v. Trumm, 118 Iowa 207, 91 N.W. 1067; Parvin v. Wimberg, 130 Ind. 561, 30 Am. St. 254, 30 N.E. 790, 15 L. R. A. 775; Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Troupe, etc., 99 Neb. 73, 155 N.W. 230; Elyria Gas & Water Co. v. City of Elyria, 57 Ohio 374, 49 N.E. 335; Mercur Gold Min. & Milling Co. v. Spry, 16 Utah 222, 52 P. 382; People v. Seale, 52 Cal. 71; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Haworth County Treasurer, 48 Okla. 132, 149 P. 1086.)

If it should be held that the meeting which was held on April 21, 1923, sufficiently complied with the law to constitute an annual school meeting, then said meeting did not determine to raise the sum of $ 10,256 or any other sum by special taxation, and did not determine the purposes for which any money derived from special taxation should be expended or name in any instance the proportion of the whole amount which was to be used for the various and separate purposes. ( Blaine v. City of Seattle, 62 Wash. 445, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 243, 114 P. 164; Ostrander v. City of Salmon, 20 Idaho 153, 117 P. 692; Stern v. City of Fargo, 18 N.D. 289, 122 N.W. 403, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 665; Lannigan v. Town of Gallup, 17 N.M. 627, 131 P. 997 (see par. 5, p. 1003); Elliott v. Tillamook Co., 86 Ore. 427, 168 P. 77 (see pars. 1, 2, p. 79); Rea v. La Fayette, 130 Ga. 771, 61 S.E. 707; State v. Wilder, 217 Mo. 261, 116 S.W. 1087; Ross v. Lipscomb, 83 S.C. 136, 137 Am. St. 794, 65 S.E. 451; Woodlawn v. Cain, 135 Ala. 369, 33 So. 149, Secs. 16-18, Sess. Laws 1921, pp. 436, 437.)

The contract entered into by the trustees for the construction of the schoolhouse was illegal and void. (Const., art. 8, sec. 3; Dunbar v. Board of Commrs., 5 Idaho 407, 49 P. 409.)

Upon appeal from a judgment where the record consists of the judgment only, as in this case, and where the findings are responsive to the material issues presented by the pleadings and sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment entered, a judgment will be affirmed. (Bergh v. Pennington, 33 Idaho 726, 198 P. 158.)

VARIAN, Commissioner. Wm. E. Lee, C. J., and Givens and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur. Budge and Taylor, JJ., did not sit at the hearing and took no part in the decision.

OPINION

VARIAN, Commissioner.--

This action is brought by respondents as taxpayers and electors of School District No. 5 of Ada county, to restrain the defendant trustees of said school district from reporting and certifying a certain attempted levy of a five mill tax for high school tuition for the year 1923, and declare said levy void; to declare an attempted levy of ten mills to raise $ 10,256 special tax for said year void, that the levy of said special tax be restrained and that respondent trustees be enjoined from reporting said levy to the clerk of the board of county commissioners; that a certain contract with one R. L. Gray for the construction of an addition to the schoolhouse in said district be declared void, that said trustees be enjoined from issuing warrants in payment of the cost of said construction and that the appellant Lura V. Paine be restrained from countersigning said warrants; that said trustees and county superintendent of public instruction be likewise restrained from issuing or countersigning any warrants for the payment of any indebtedness on account of furniture to furnish said addition and from paying, or contracting, any indebtedness on account of said furniture.

The case was formerly before this court on appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the amended complaint, Petrie v. Common School Dist. No. 5, 38 Idaho 583, 223 P. 535, where it was held that the amended complaint stated a cause of action in equity and that injunction would lie. The district court found for respondents and the injunctions issued.

This appeal is upon the judgment-roll alone, and the only question to be determined is: Do the findings support the judgment?

It is not necessary to refer to all of the findings, which are very voluminous.

On March 27, 1923, the clerk of the board of trustees of respondent school district caused notice of the annual school meeting of said district to be given by publication in a newspaper published in Ada county. Said notice is dated March 27, 1923, and provides:

"Notice is hereby given, that the annual school meeting of Cole Common School District No. 5, Ada County, State of Idaho will be held on Saturday, the 21st day of April, 1923, and the said meeting shall convene at 1 o'clock P. M. on said day and continue uninterruptedly until the business properly coming before said meeting is disposed of, at the school...