Sch. Bd. of Consol. Dist. No. 36, Stephens Cnty. v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 28 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 28367 |
| Citation | 184 Okla. 384,87 P.2d 962,1939 OK 126 |
| Parties | SCHOOL BOARD OF CONSOLIDATED DISTRICT NO. 36, STEPHENS COUNTY v. EDWARDS et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS--Dissolution of Union Graded District Effective to Reinstate Its Component Common School Districts.
When common school districts are made into a union graded school district they are thereby disorganized, but their legal status as common school districts is merely suspended so long as the unionization continues. Upon dissolution of the union graded school district said common school districts are reinstated, and resume their common school district status. (Sections 6938, 6939, 6940, O. S. 1931, 70 Okla. St. Ann. secs. 582, 593, 281.)
2. SAME-Liability of Common School Districts for Bonded Indebtedness of Union Graded District.
When a union graded school district is dissolved, leaving a bonded indebtedness, same is distributed among the school districts composing it in proportion to assessed valuations, and same "attaches to and becomes a part of" said original common school districts. The failure of a county excise board to apportion said debt between the various original districts does not relieve the districts from the debt. (Section 6939, O. S. 1931, 70 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 583.)
3. SAME--Liability for Bonded Indebtedness of Common School District Uniting to Form Consolidated District.
Where a common school district has a bonded indebtedness, and unites to form a consolidated district, the debt remains that of the common school district; the assets and property of such disorganized common school district are first applied against its floating and bonded indebtedness, and such bonded indebtedness attaches to and becomes a charge against the territory comprised in such disorganized common school district. (Section 6924, O. S. 1931, 70 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 255.)
4. SAME--Rights in Property and Assets of Common School District Uniting to Form Union Graded District.
When a common school district unites to form a union graded school district, the latter does not become absolute owner of the property and assets of the common school district, but the right of the taxpayers of the common school district to have said property remain a financial asset of that district is paramount to any right or interest of the union graded district as such.
5. SAME--Disposition of Property and Assets of Disorganized Common School District Uniting to Form Consolidated District.
If a common school district, having a bonded indebtedness, joins others in forming a consolidated district, its assets and property must be applied in payment of its said indebtedness, and the residue, if any, then goes to the consolidated district. (Section 6924, O. S. 1931, 70 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 255.)
6. SAME--Right of Resident Taxpayer to Enjoin Removal of School Building From Disorganized District.
Resident taxpayers of a disorganized common school district having a bonded indebtedness held entitled to enjoin removal of a school building from said disorganized district, as against board of consolidated district of which it had become a part.
7. INJUNCTION--Bond not Required on Issuance of Permanent Injunction.
An injunction bond is not required on the issuance of a permanent injunction.
Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; Chain Jones, Judge.
Injunction action by W. S. Edwards and O. E. Harrell against the Board of Consolidated School District No. 36, Stephens County. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Sullivan & Marmaduke, for plaintiff in error.
Bond & Bond and Brown & Cund, for defendants in error.
¶1 This is an action by certain taxpayers residing in territory formerly organized as Burwood school district No. 56 in Stephens county, which is now a disorganized district and is a part of consolidated school district No. 36 in that county. They sought an injunction against the school board of the consolidated district enjoining said board from moving a three-room school building, known as a "teacherage," from said Burwood district territory to a high school located elsewhere within the consolidated district. The trial court held for the plaintiffs, and the defendant school board appeals.
¶2 Prior to 1926 there were three common school districts lying adjacent each other, known as Burwood school district No. 56, Thompson school district No. 57, and Royal school district No. 36. The Burwood district, wherein plaintiffs reside, had no indebtedness and it owned the three-room building which is the subject of this action.
¶3 In 1926 these three common school districts were united by vote of the people into one district, known as union graded school district No. 36. Said union graded district thereafter voted a bond issue of $8,000, and a high school building was erected. Until May 17, 1937, during which time the bonded indebtedness had been reduced to $4,000, the territory remained thus organized.
¶4 On that date, however, the union graded district was dissolved by an order of the county superintendent, pursuant to the result of an election held on May 4, 1937, for the purpose of voting on the question. No, allocation or proration of the above indebtedness among the three common school districts, as formerly existed, was made by thecounty excise board or by anyone else, at any time.
¶5 The entire territory thus lay without any formal reorganization for a while. At an election on June 22, 1937, the vote carried to disorganize common school districts Nos. 56, 57, and 36 and to consolidate the same into one district, the same to be known as consolidated school district No. 36. On July 15, 1937, the county superintendent's order was entered declaring the result of said election and announcing the organization of said consolidated district.
¶6 As stated above, when the union graded district was dissolved there was no allocation or proration of the $4,000 remaining bonded indebtedness among the disorganized common school districts. The evidence in the case shows what that amount should be, as to each of said districts. The county excise board, however, did make a levy for the fiscal year 19371938, to cover this indebtedness, against the entire territory comprising consolidated school district No. 36, which is the same territory as that comprising the three disorganized districts.
¶7 At some time prior to December of 1937, the defendant school board of consolidated district No. 36 made preparations to move the three-room building mentioned above, from its location in the Burwood territory, to its high school located outside of the old Burwood district, for use as a class room. The plaintiffs filed this injunction action top prevent said removal. Their theory, which was adopted by the trial court, was that, pursuant to the statutes hereinafter quoted, the Burwood school district territory was charged with its pro rata share of the $4,000 remaining bonded indebtedness of the former union graded school district, and that they as taxpayers and in behalf of other taxpayers similarly situated were entitled to have the Burwood school district property sold and the proceeds applied on that indebtedness. Thus the Burwood territory's share would eventually be reduced by the sale price of the house; otherwise the plaintiffs' taxes would be increased, or would aggregate more than if the house were moved away and not sold and applied against said indebtedness. On the other hand, the defendants contend that no part of the union graded school district's bonded debt devolved upon the Burwood district at all, upon dissolution of the union graded district.
¶8 Proper solution of the question necessitates consideration of the changes in identity of the district or districts, as related above, in the order of occurrence thereof, and the legal result flowing from each of said changes.
¶9 When Burwood, Thompson, and Royal common school districts in 1926 were organized into union graded school district No. 36, they were thereby disorganized in so far as ail existing legal status as school districts was concerned. Section 6940, O. S. 1931, 70 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 281. But in another sense, or dependent upon future contingencies, their organization or status was only suspended. Such a contingency would be the dissolution of the union graded district itself. As stated in Board of Education of Town of Gould v. Smith, 184 Okla. 104, 85 P.2d 286, "their legal status as common school districts ceases or is suspended so long as the consolidation continues".
¶10 When the union graded district was dissolved on May 17, 1937, leaving an unpaid balance on its bonded indebtedness, the result was not a mere void or hiatus in school district identity throughout the territory. Continuing the above quotation from the Gould Case, wherein the court was speaking of either a consolidated or union graded dissolution and the effect thereof upon the common school districts from which it was formed:
.
¶11 Section 6938, O. S. 1931, 70 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 582, "revives" said common school districts. That operation of the law was recognized and adopted by the governing officers, for although the record indicates that the prime purpose in dissolving the union graded district was the desire to become a consolidated district, it also indicates that the county superintendent issued a decree reviving said common school districts and that separate school boards were in fact appointed for each of them. The three common school districts again existed, at least in so...
To continue reading
Request your trial