Ratliff v. State

• Decision Date: 10 August 1920
• Docket Number: 11254.
• Citation: 191 P. 1038,79 Okla. 152,1920 OK 273
• Parties: RATLIFF ET AL. v. STATE EX REL. WOODS, CO. ATTY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

191 P. 1038

79 Okla. 152, 1920 OK 273

RATLIFF ET AL. v. STATE EX REL. WOODS, CO. ATTY.

No. 11254.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

August 10, 1920

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1920.

Syllabus by the Court.

In a quo warranto proceeding on behalf of the state of Oklahoma against the officers of a consolidated school district to declare the organization of a school district illegal and void, where it is stipulated the county superintendent failed to mail notice to the women voters of the district, and the defendants offered to prove that all of the women voters in said district had actual notice and knowledge of the election and participated therein, and the court sustained an objection to said evidence, held error; that said evidence was a complete defense.

Where a special election is assailed on the ground of lack of compliance with all of the statutory requirements in reference to notice, but there is no averment or showing that the electors did not have actual notice or knowledge of the election, and failed to participate therein by reason thereof, the same will not be held void on this account.

In an election for consolidating certain school districts into a consolidated district to be used for the benefit of the white children, the negro voters were not qualified electors to participate in said election by reason of section 7899, Revised Laws 1910.

Appeal from District Court, McClain County; F. B. Swank, Judge.

Proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto by the State of Oklahoma, on the relation of W. H. Woods, County Attorney of McClain County, Okl., against J. A. Ratliff and others. Judgment for relator, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions to grant plaintiffs in error a new trial.

Shartel Dudley & Shartel, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

McMillan & Gresham and Williams & Luttrell, all of Norman, for defendant in error.

McNEILL J.

This was a proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto, brought by the state of Oklahoma, on the relation of W. H. Wood, county attorney of McClain county, against J. A. Ratliff, O. A Madden, and W. A. Harding, to declare the organization of consolidated school district of Cole null and void. The petition alleged the organization of the district was illegal for several reasons. The material allegations are contained in paragraph 10 of the petition, which alleged that certain citizens of Ross district No. 6, which is embraced in the consolidated district, did not receive any notice of the election, and that none of the women received any notice, and that none of the negro citizens living in Ross district received any notice. To this petition, the defendants filed an answer, which was a general denial, and pleaded the fact that the district had been legally organized, and they were the duly elected officers of said consolidated school district. Upon the trial of the case to the court certain facts were stipulated: First, it was stipulated that there was no newspaper published within said district; second, it was agreed that the notices required to be posted in each district, were posted as required by law third, it was agreed that notice was mailed by the county superintendent of the special election to the list of voters as shown by the certified list of taxpayers furnished by the clerk of the several school districts involved, and also as shown by the school census for each district, and where the school census duplicated the list of taxpayers the superintendent of schools only sent notice to one of them. It was further agreed that in using the census card and list of taxpayers no notice was sent to the wife of any voter, except where it might appear that her name was on the certified list as a taxpayer or on the census enumeration, and that no notice was mailed to any negro voter in any of the several districts. After these facts were agreed upon, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings and the stipulated facts, and the defendants then made the following offer:

"In connection with this agreement which we made in order to expedite matters, the defendants will offer proof before the case is closed that the women--all the women--participated in this election and voted and had knowledge of the election"

--and further offered to prove as follows:

"We now offer to show that the women voters of the district who did not receive notice by mail each voted and participated in the election, and that the larger majority of them voted favorably to the consolidation of the districts, and that is true as to each of the four districts, and that the vote in the general election stood 117 for the consolidation and 43 against.

We also offer the vote from district 46 and from districts 43, 27, and 28, showing the names of the women that voted in this election and participated in it."

The court stated as follows:

"I hold that the election could not be made valid. It don't make any difference what happened after they failed to give this notice. I would just as soon state that in there as not."

The court refused to hear or consider any evidence except the stipulation, but held the failure of the county superintendent to mail written notice...