Sch. Dist. No. 17, Rogers Cnty. v. Eaton, Co., Case Number: 14720

• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Writing for the Court: JONES, C.
• Citation: 97 Okla. 177,223 P. 857,1924 OK 184
• Decision Date: 12 February 1924
• Docket Number: Case Number: 14720
• Parties: SCHOOL DIST. NO. 17, ROGERS COUNTY, v. EATON, Co. Supt., et al.

1924 OK 184
223 P. 857
97 Okla. 177

SCHOOL DIST. NO. 17, ROGERS COUNTY,
v.
EATON, Co. Supt., et al.

Case Number: 14720

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 12, 1924

Syllabus

¶0 1. Schools and School Districts--Change in Boundaries--Powers of County Superintendent.

A county superintendent has no power or jurisdiction to change the boundaries of a regularly organized school district, by detaching a portion thereof, and attaching it to another organized district, or forming or creating thereby a new district, until a petition has been duly presented to him, signed by at least one-third of the qualified electors of such school district, and until the notice required by the statute has been given. Cleveland v. School District 79, 51 Okla. 69, P. 577.

2. Same--Arbitrary Action--Injunction.

Where a county superintendent arbitrarily and without the requisite petition and notice, attempts to detach a portion of the territory from an organized school district, injunction is the appropriate remedy. Cleveland v. School District 79, 51 Okla. 69, 151 P. 577.

3. Same--Quo Warranto the Remedy.

Quo warranto is the proper proceeding to determine the question of the legal existence or validity of the organization of a municipal corporation, such as a school district, but where there is no question as to the legality or validity and existence of the organization of the body corporate, the writ of injunction will lie, to enjoin public officials from arbitrarily altering or changing the boundaries of such municipal corporation or school district, and incidentally determine the boundaries.

4. Evidence--Best and Secondary Evidence.

The best evidence the nature of the case will admit of shall always be required, if possible to be had, but when the best evidence is not available and its absence properly accounted for, secondary evidence is admissible.

5. Sufficiency of Evidence.

The evidence as disclosed by the record in this case examined, and held sufficient to clearly establish the material allegations of plaintiff's petition.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No, 3.
Error from District Court, Rogers County; C. W. Mason, Judge.
Action by School District No. 17, Rogers County, against Caroline Eaton, County Superintendent, and others. From the judgment plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Frank Ertell, for plaintiff in error.

P. W. Holtzendorff, for defendants in error.

JONES, C.

¶1 This suit was instituted by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, against the defendant superintendent of public instruction of Rogers county to enjoin her from changing the boundary line of the plaintiff district; to enjoin the defendant county assessor from assessing the disputed territory in controversy as belonging to defendant school district No. 20 Rogers county, Okla., and to enjoin the defendant county treasurer from supplying the funds derived as taxes from the disputed territory to school district No. 20. School district No. 17 and 20 lie adjacent and the territory in dispute is described as sections 7 and 8, township 20 north, range 17 east, and the north half of sections 11 and 12, township 20 north, range 16 east, in Rogers county, Okla.

¶2 At statehood district 20 was organized and included the disputed territory. The record of the organization is incomplete and from all. the records in evidence the law had not been fully complied with in that the book prescribed for such purposes by statute does not contain a description of the boundaries of the districts. The only record of its organization is the notice posted before organization which notice sets out the disputed territory as being in district 20, and a map showing the territory in dispute to be a part of 20 However, the district carried on its business and was recognized as a legal district and the plaintiff concedes that it became and was a lawful school district. The disputed territory was subsequently transferred to the plaintiff district. The defendants contend that such transfer was not made. All the records that are now in the superintendent's office in so far as they are material, were offered in evidence. Such records are few and incomplete, and as shown by the evidence are evidently not all the records that have been made and that were at one time in existence. All the testimony shows, and it is not contradicted by any evidence, that this disputed territory was carried as belonging to 17, the plaintiff district, from and including the year 1912, to immediately prior to the time of filing this suit. The maps of the superintendent's office show it as belonging to district 17; the residents of the disputed territory were considered as belonging to 17 and took part in the public school meetings and elections of such district and not elsewhere from 1912 to the time of the institution of this suit; the children of said territory attended school in district 17 and were forbidden by district 20 to attend there without a transfer by the county superintendent, and payment therefor by district 17. All the taxes paid by the property owners of the disputed territory commencing with the year 1912 to the time of the institution of this suit were paid in district 17. The plaintiff district erected and maintains a four-room graded school, including high-school work, and the plaintiff offered to show a bond issue made by district 17, about 12 years prior this time, to erect and equip this school and that the owners of the territory in question have paid their part thereof in taxes, and that such bonds are now practically paid.

¶3 The evidence shows that the superintendent in...