Sch. Directors of Union Sch.-Dist. No. 4 v. Sch. Directors of New Union Sch.-Dist. No. 2

• Decision Date: 21 January 1891
• Citation: 28 N.E. 49,135 Ill. 464
• Parties: SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF UNION SCHOOL-DIST. No. 4 v. SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF NEW UNION SCHOOL-DIST. NO. 2.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

135 Ill. 464

28 N.E. 49

SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF UNION SCHOOL-DIST. No. 4

v.SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF NEW UNION SCHOOL-DIST. NO. 2.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 21, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Tazewell county; T. M. SHAW, Judge.McCulloch & McCulloch, for appellants.

B. S. Prettyman, for appellees.

This is a bill in chancery filed by the school directors of New Union District No. 2, which includes territory in 4 to wnships, i. e., 21 N., range 4 W.; 21 N., range 5 W.; 22 N., range 4 W.; 22 N., range 5 W.,-in the counties of Logan, Mason, and Tazewell,-and Isaac Brown and Andrew Jacobs, tax-payers residing in said district, against the school-directors of Union District No. 4, which lies in the two townships last above named, and against the county clerks of the above-named counties, for injunction and other relief. The southern tier of sections in township 22 N., 4 W., is in Logan county, and the same tier in township 22 N., 5 W., is in Mason county; the county line of said counties being one mile north of the township lines. Before the formation of New Union School-District No. 2, Union District No. 4 had embraced sections 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, and 32, in township 22 N., 4 W., the last two sections being in Logan county; and also E. 1/2 of 13, all of sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 36, E. 1/2 27, S. E. 22, N. E. 35, township 22 N., 5 W., all of section 36, and N. E. 35, were in Mason county. The other lands were in Tazewell county. Immediately south of this district was another, called ‘Union District No. 2,’ and composed of W. 1/2 of 7, W. 1/2 and N. W. of 6, except 20 acres in township 21 N., 4 W., all in Logan county; and all of section 1, E. 1/2 of 2, N. E. 11, township 21 N., 5 W., and the S. E. 35, in township 22 N., 5 W., all in Mason county. Proceedings were instituted under the act of 1883 for the purpose of forming a new district, embracing all the lands in Union District No. 2, and lands from two other districts, one of which was district No. 4, defendant, by which it is claimed that a new Union School-District No. 2 was legally formed. The territory claimed to have been transferred from Union District No. 4 to New Union District No. 2 is section 31, S. 1/2 of 30, and S. W. 1/4 32, township 22 N., 4 W.; all of section 36, S. 1/2 25, S. 1/2 26, and N. E. 35, 22 N., 5 W. There was also taken by the new district three quarters in section 12, township 21 N., 5 W., theretofore belonging to district No. 5, in township 21 N., 5 W. To effect the results thus claimed, petitions were presented to the boards of trustees of schools of townships 22 N., 4 W., and 22 N., 5 W., to be acted on at their annual meeting to be held April 5, 1886. Both of these boards denied the prayer of the petition, one of them giving as a reason for so doing that it would destroy said district No. 4. Similar petitions were presented to the other boards, viz., townships 21 N., 4 W., and 21 N., 5 W., to be acted on at the same meeting, and which boards granted the prayer of the petition. The parties interested in the formation of the new district No. 2 proceeded by mandamus in the circuit court of Tazewell county to compel the boards of trustees of townships 22 N., 4 W., and 22 N., 5 W., to concur with the boards of trustees of townships 21 N., 4 W., and 21 N., 5 W., in the formation of the new district. The two boards of trustees, townships 22 N., 4 W., and 22 N., 5 W., were the only defendants. A demurrer was interposed to the petition for mandamus, which was overruled by the circuit court, and, the defendants electing to stand by their demurrer, mandamus was awarded. From the judgment of the circuit court awarding said writ the defendants appealed to the appellate court, where the judgment was affirmed, and the cause came to this court upon their further appeal, in which the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed by this court. Trustees v. People, 25 Ill. App. 25, 121 Ill. 552, 13 N. E. Rep. 526. The school directors of Union District No. 4, denying the validity of the proceedings by which it was deprived of a part of its territory, insist that the New Union School-District No. 2 has no legal existence, and refuse to surrender to the directors of that district the school-house situated upon the detached territory, have locked the doors of the same, and proceeded to exercise acts of ownership and control by repairing the same, etc., and have assumed to levy, and cause to be collected, school taxes on the detached territory for the purpose of maintaining schools in said district No. 4. The board of trustees of township 22 N., 4 W., and 22 N., 5 W., refuse to file, or cause to be filed, a map of said New Union District No. 2 with the county clerks of said counties, respectively, so that said clerks could not extend the taxes ordered by the directors of the new district, and neglected and refused to make return or report to the clerk the taxes levied by such directors as required by law, and refused to recognize said districts, or directors thereof, as having any right to collect taxes, or as having any legal existence. On hearing, the circuit court decreed in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and dismissed the cross-bill filed by the directors of Union District No. 4, from which decree those directors have appealed to this court. The other material facts appear in the opinion.

SHOPE, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

This is a bill in chancery by the school directors of New Union School-District No. 2, in township 21 N., ranges 4 and 5 W., and township 22 N., ranges 4 and 5 W., in the counties of Logan, Mason, and Tazewell, and Andrew, Jacobs and Isaac C. Brown, tax-payers of said district, against the school directors of Union School-District No. 4, the boards of trustees of schools in township 22 N., ranges 4 and 5 W., and the county clerks of the counties named, for injunction and other relief. The principal question is as to the corporate existence of the complainant school-district. The objection made is a collateral attack upon the legality of the formation of said New Union School-District No. 2. If the complainant is a de facto corporation, and at the time of filing its bill was exercising the functions and powers of such a corporate body, it is ordinarily sufficient to enable it to sue and be sued, in respect of the public rights it represents, even though there may have been irregularities in its formation. Renwick v. Hall, 84 Ill. 162. A change in a school-district cannot ordinarily be questioned collaterally. People v. Newberry, 87 Ill. 41. A much stricter rule prevails in a direct proceeding questioning the corporate existence of the body and its right to exercise corporate functions. An information in the nature of a quo warranto is the proper remedy to test the legality of the formation of a school-district, and it may be that the common-law writ of certiorari will furnish an appropriate remedy. People v. Newberry, supra. The new school-district, the existence of which is denied, lies in three different counties, and in four different townships, and is composed of territory taken wholly or in part from three other districts. The proceedings for its formation were taken under an act entitled ‘An act to provide a way by which the people of any territory lying within three or more districts, and in three or more townships, containing not less than 400 inhabitants, may be organized into a school-district’ in force July 1, 1883. Petitions signed by the requisite number of persons were presented, in proper time, to each of the four boards of trustees of the townships from which land was sought to be taken for the formation of the new district, and asking for its formation. Notices were served on the school directors of the several school-districts from which the territory was sought to be detached. Two of the boards of trustees of schools, that is, those in township 21 N., ranges 4 and 5 W., granted the prayer of the petitioners; but the two defendant boards of trustees refused the prayer, claiming, as it is said, that the act of 1883, under which proceedings were instituted, was unconstitutional and void. Mandamus proceedings were instituted to compel them to grant the prayer of the petition. These two boards of trustees were made defendant thereto, but Union School-District No. 4 was not made a party, and, as we shall see, properly so, as it was not required to do anything, and could perform no act constituting or forming the new district. The defendant boards of trustees appeared and demurred to the petition for mandamus. The circuit court overruled the demurrer, and entered judgment commanding the said defendants to grant the prayer of the petitions for the establishment of the new district No. 2, and this judgment was affirmed by the appellate court and by this court. 121 Ill. 552; 13 N. E. Rep. 526. The judgment of this court affirming that of the circuit court and appellate court, if not conclusive as to the legality of the steps taken for the formation of the new district as against district No. 4, defendant here, it is because that district is not bound by the act of the trustees of schools who were defendants to the said mandamus proceedings. It certainly is conclusive upon all parties to the suit in which it was rendered, as to all objections that might have been urged against the legality of the proceeding organizing the new school-district. We are of opinion that the judgment in that case is conclusive upon all persons. The trustees of schools represent the public in respect of all matters confided to them by law, and their action within the scope of their authority, when acting in conformity with the law, must necessarily be binding upon the public; and their acts, when done in obedience to the mandates of a court of competent jurisdiction, must have the same binding force and effect as if performed without such mandate and upon their own motion and judgment. In the mandamus...