Reuland v. Independent Dist. of White Lake
| Decision Date | 09 November 1936 |
| Docket Number | 8011. |
| Citation | 269 N.W. 484,64 S.D. 621 |
| Parties | REULAND et al. v. INDEPENDENT DIST. OF WHITE LAKE et al. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Aurora County; R. C. Bakewell, Judge.
Suit for injunction by Frank Reuland and others against the Independent District of White Lake, a school corporation, and others to enjoin issuance of school bonds. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed and cause remanded, with directions.
Fellows & Fellows and Morgan & Whiting, all of Mitchell, for appellants.
W. D Shouse, of White Lake, and Miller & Miller, of Mitchell, for respondents.
Defendant-respondent White Lake School District is organized under the laws of this state as an independent school district and has within its boundaries a municipal corporation of the second class. On October 9, 1935, there was presented to the board of education of the school district and filed with the clerk thereof a duly verified petition, signed by more than 20 per cent. of the electors of such school district who were named as owners of real property therein in the tax lists for the year 1934, which petition asked that the board of education of the district "issue bonds in the principal amount of $30,000 for the purpose of providing public school building." On the next day the board of education adopted a resolution calling a special election to submit to the voters the question of issuing bonds in the sum of $30,000 "to provide an adequate building and equipment and furniture for school purposes." The election was thereafter held, and the question in the form stated in the resolution of the board of education was submitted to the electors and a canvass of the vote on November 11 determined a total of 395 votes cast, 242 of which were in favor of the issuance of the bonds. It thus appearing that five more than the necessary three-fifths (section 100, c. 138, Laws 1931) of all ballots cast upon the question were in favor of issuing bonds, the board adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance thereof, accepting an offer of the United States government to purchase the same, and levying a tax upon the property of the district to establish an interest and a sinking fund for payment. Before the bonds were in fact issued, however, plaintiffs herein, who are residents electors, and taxpayers of the school district, instituted the present action in the circuit court to enjoin such issuance. Plaintiffs by their complaint allege that the proceedings looking toward the issuance of the bonds were illegal and defective in many particulars, including the point that the petition of the property-owning electors filed with the board of education, as hereinbefore recited, was not sufficient in form or substance to justify the calling of the special election or the submission to the voters of the question which in fact was submitted. Issue being duly joined, the matter came on for trial before the court. All facts were fully found and are without substantial dispute. Upon those facts the learned trial judge concluded, as a matter of law, that all the proceedings looking toward the issuance of the bonds were legal and valid save only that the petition of the elector property owners was insufficient. He further concluded as a matter of law, however, that, although the filing of a proper petition was a condition precedent to the issuance of the bonds, it was not a condition precedent to the calling of the election and might be filed, even after the election, at any time before the actual issuance. Upon this view, and in consideration of the fact that the bonds had not yet been issued and that no proper petition had yet been filed, the court made the following conclusion of law: "That the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction against said Independent District of White Lake, and the officers thereof, enjoining them from issuing said bonds or any part thereof, unless and until a new verified petition signed by not less than twenty per cent of the electors in said district who are named as owners of real property in the tax list or lists of the last preceding year asking for the issuing of said bonds for the purpose of providing an adequate building and equipment and furniture for school purposes for said district, has been presented to the Board of Education of said district and filed with the Clerk of said Board." Pursuant to this conclusion a sort of conditional judgment was entered awarding to plaintiffs a permanent injunction against the issuance of the bonds "unless and until a verified petition signed by not less than 20% of all the electors of such school district who are named as owners of real property in the tax list or lists of the last preceding year, asking for the issuance of said bonds for the purpose of providing an adequate building and equipment and furniture for school purposes for said district, has been filed with the Clerk of the Board of Education of said Independent School District within 30 days from and after the date of the entry of this judgment." It is conceded by all parties that a petition for the issuance of said bonds, sufficient in all respects in form and substance, was filed with the clerk of the board of education of the school district within thirty days after the entry of this judgment. From so much of the judgment as is unfavorable to their contentions plaintiffs have appealed upon the judgment roll, and the question is whether the facts as found support the conclusions and judgment.
The form of the judgment is novel, and under our practice we doubt if it is permissible, although the object which the court was seeking to accomplish is quite apparent. The judgment is really interlocutory in nature rather than final. Our procedure contemplates a final judgment determining the rights of the parties according to existent facts before the court at the time of the adjudication. Cf. Western Building Co. v. J. C. Penney Co. (1932) 60 S.D. 630, 245 N.W. 909. We believe, however, that further discussion or consideration of this point is unnecessary for the disposition of this appeal.
We think the first question that should be determined is whether or not the court below was correct in holding, as a matter of law, that the filing of a sufficient and adequate petition of property-owning electors, while a condition precedent to the issuance of bonds, was not a condition precedent to a valid election on the question of bond issuance. Respondents argue that the petition of October 9 was in fact and law a valid and sufficient petition whether it was a condition precedent to calling the election or merely a condition precedent to the issuance of the bonds, or both. The trial judge has ruled otherwise, and we think he was correct. If it is the law, either that an election cannot be called to vote upon a bond issue or that bonds cannot be issued until there has been filed a proper "petition to issue such bonds," it seems very clear that a petition to issue bonds "for the purpose of providing public school building" cannot support or justify the issuance of bonds for the broader and more comprehensive purposes of providing "an adequate building and equipment and furniture for school purposes." In any event, plaintiffs-appellants do not challenge the ruling of the trial court on this particular point, it being favorable to them, and defendants-respondents, having perfected no appeal on their part, are not in position to raise the question. Cf. Wood v. McCain (1919) 41 S.D. 418, 171 N.W. 82. We revert then to the question of whether the filing of a sufficient and legal petition is a condition precedent to the calling of a valid bond election as appellants maintain, or whether it is a condition precedent only to the issuance of the bonds as respondents maintain and as the trial court held. For the solution of this question some consideration of relevant statutes is essential.
After the adoption of the Revised Code of 1919 bonds could be issued by either common or independent school districts for certain specified purposes upon majority vote of the electors. Sections 7593, 7606, R.C.1919. There was no requirement whatever for a petition of property owners, and so far as concerned independent districts, no requirement for a petition of any kind. In common school districts a prerequisite to submitting the bond issue question to a vote of the district was a petition by one-third of the resident voters. Section 7592, R.C.1919. In independent districts a bond election might be called by resolution of the board of education whenever they deemed it necessary and expedient. Section 7603, R.C. 1919. By an amendatory act (chapter 166, Laws 1923) the vote necessary to carry a bond election in both common and independent school districts was increased from a mere majority of all...
To continue reading
Request your trial