Rice v. McClelland

• Decision Date: 31 October 1874
• Parties: COLUMBUS T. RICE, Respondent, v. JOHN C. MCCLELLAND, et al., Directors Sub-District, No. 3, Township 63, Range 14; and SIMON ROROBAUGH, et al., Directors Sub-District No. 5, Township 63, Range 14, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

58 Mo. 116

COLUMBUS T. RICE, Respondent,

v.JOHN C. MCCLELLAND, et al., Directors Sub-District, No. 3, Township 63, Range 14; and SIMON ROROBAUGH, et al., Directors Sub-District No. 5, Township 63, Range 14, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1874.

Appeal from Adair Circuit Court.

Harrington & Cover, for Appellants, cited: School Directors vs. Miller, 49 Ills., 494: Potter vs. Chapin, 6 Paige, 639.

Ellison & Ellison, for Respondent, cited: Com. of Craw ford Co. vs. Com. Marion Co., 16 Ohio, 466.

VORIES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding commenced in the Adair Circuit Court, the object of which was to compel the two sets of school directors who are named as defendants, to interplead in the cause and have their respective rights settled to certain funds then in the possession of the plaintiff as township clerk, etc.

The best statement of the case that can be made is to copy the petition filed by the plaintiff which gives a detailed statement of the whole facts in the case, and is as follows:

“Plaintiff represents to the Hon. Circuit Court aforesaid, that he is the township clerk of townships Nos. 63 and 64, of Range 14, and that prior to the 16th day of Oct., 1871, Township No. 63, Range 14, was sub-divided into four sub-districts numbered one, two, three and four, and the boundaries of each sub-district fixed as the law provides. That while said township was thus sub-divided into four districts, the local directors for sub-district No. 3 in pursuance of section 6, of the present school law, determined to erect a school-house for said sub-district, and for that purpose returned to the township clerk an estimate of $600 to be assessed upon and collected from the taxable property of said sub-district No. 3; also the sum of $25, for a school house site, and $20 for furniture for said school, and ten dollars for fuel, was appropriated and estimated for, making in all for said house, site, furniture and fuel the sum of $655; all of which will more fully appear from the records of said sub-district, a copy of which is herewith filed marked “A;” and that there is now and was before the 16th day of Oct., 1871, in his hands for said sub-district No. 3, the sum of $149.25, and that there will presently come into his hands the township and county funds heretofore estimated for said sub-district No. 3, before said 16th day of Oct., 1871. That on the 3rd Saturday of Sept., 1871, three of the six members of the board of education for Townships 63 and 64, of Range 14, met and there being no quorum the three present adjourned to the 15th of Oct., 1871, as appears by the record, a copy of which is herewith filed, marked “B,” and a few days after said adjournment it was discovered that the 15th day of Oct., 1871, came on the first day of the week commonly called Sunday, and the time for meeting was changed from the 15th to the 16th day of October. 1871. by petition or order of change signed by five of the six members of the board of education, as will appear from a copy of the record filed, marked “C.”

That on the 16th day of Oct., 1871, said board of education met and considered the question of dividing said sub-district No. 3, so as to make what is called Floyd's creek the line between said sub-districts.

That a petition asking said division was presented to said board signed by twenty-six persons residents of said district, and a remonstrance with twenty-six persons residents of said district protesting against said division. That upon consideration of the matter by said board it was ordered that said sub-district No. 3, be divided as prayed for in said petition * * making two sub-districts out of the former territory of No. 3, the said new sub-district being numbered 5, and the lines and boundaries of both 3 and 5 being fixed by said board on said 16th day of Oct., 1871; and that afterwards the defendants Simon Rorobaugh, James B. Leighton and Benj. D. Currence were appointed directors for said sub-district No. 5, and that sub-district No. 3, retained the same number; and the defendants John C. McClelland, Charles Beardslee and Charles Hoag, are the directors of sub-district No. 3. That afterwards the question arose as to the disposition of all the funds held by the plaintiff as such clerk as aforesaid * * * and a controversy was gotten up between said sub-districts as to how and to whom said funds should be disbursed by the plaintiff, and a special meeting of said township board was had on the 25th day of Nov., 1871, and an order made by them dividing said funds between said sub-districts and ordering the plaintiff to pay the same out as follows, to-wit: The funds for a school house site, furniture and fuel raised by taxation, should be paid to each of said sub-districts from the taxes on property within the present limits of said districts; that is, all collections made within the present limits of district No. 3, should be paid out on orders from their school directors, and all the taxes on said estimates collected within the territory of said sub-district No. 5, should be paid out on orders from its local directors, and that the other funds should be divided between said sub-districts Nos. 3 and 5, in the ratio that the scholars in said districts should bear to each other as shown by the enumerations; and that sub-district No. 5, expressed itself satisfied with the action of the board; but that sub-district No. 3, is not satisfied and threatens to sue plaintiff if he pays any of the funds aforesaid to sub-district No. 5, and that sub-district No. 5, threatens to sue plaintiff to compel him to pay as said board ordered and directed him at said meeting last aforesaid. Your petitioner says he is not learned in the law, and that each of said sub-districts have and do raise objections as to the legality and force of the action of the other, and objections are raised as to the various acts and doings of the board of education aforesaid in the premises. Your petitioner says that he is a trustee for the funds aforesaid, and that he has been placed in such circumstances as to raise a reasonable doubt as to how he shall dispose of said funds and to whom, etc. There...