Sch. Corp. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Hartford

• Decision Date: 22 November 1913
• Parties: SCHOOL CORPORATION OF RICHLAND TP., WARREN COUNTY v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. OF HARTFORD ET AL. (TWO CASES).
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

162 Iowa 257

144 N.W. 20

SCHOOL CORPORATION OF RICHLAND TP., WARREN COUNTY

v.INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. OF HARTFORD ET AL. (TWO CASES).

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 22, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Warren County; Lorin W. Hays, Judge.

Suit in equity to enjoin the defendant school district and its officers from issuing certain bonds on the ground of alleged illegality in the organization of defendant school district. Subsequent to the institution of this suit, a certiorari proceeding was instituted by the same plaintiff against the same defendants for the purpose of testing the legality of the same proceedings. The two cases were tried together in the court below and are submitted here upon the same briefs. The defendants demurred to the petition in the first suit and moved to quash the writ in the second. The demurrer and motion were each sustained, and the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed on both appeals.W. M. Wilson, of Indianola, and Parsons & Mills, of Des Moines, for appellant.

Berry & Watson, of Indianola, for appellees.

EVANS, J.

The proceedings attacked by the plaintiff purported to have been had in pursuance of section 2794 of Code Supplement, which is as follows: “Formation of Independent District. Upon the written petition of any ten voters of a city, town or village of over one hundred residents, to the board of the school corporation in which the portion of the town plat having the largest number of voters is situated, such board shall establish the boundaries of a proposed independent district, including therein all of the city, town or village, and also such contiguous territory as is authorized by a written petition of a majority of the resident electors of the contiguous territory proposed to be included in said district, in not smaller subdivisions than entire forties of land, in the same or any adjoining school corporations, as may best subserve the convenience of the people for school purposes, and shall give the same notices of a meeting as required in other cases, at which meeting all voters upon the territory included within the contemplated independent district shall be allowed to vote by ballot for or against such separate organization. When it is proposed to include territory outside the town, city or village, the voters residing upon such outside territory shall be entitled to vote separately upon the proposition for the formation of such new district, by presenting a petition of at least twenty-five per cent. of the voters residing upon such outside territory, and if a majority of the votes so cast is against including such outside territory then the proposed independent district shall not be formed.”

It is conceded that a petition was presented to the school board of the defendant school district signed by 10 voters of Hartford, a village of over 100 residents. A further petition was presented to the same board signed by 71 voters residing in contiguous territory outside of such village and which was proposed to be included in the new district. Such second petition purported to be signed by a majority of the voters resident in such contiguous territory. The school board found such to be the fact. In pursuance of such petition an election was called in due accord with the provisions of the statute. By proper petition the ballots of the voters of such contiguous territory were deposited in a separate ballot box. The proposed new district included 18 sections of territory of the plaintiff, a school district township. We infer from the arguments that the...