School Dist. No. 35 v. School District No. 32

• Decision Date: 29 January 1923
• Docket Number: No. 3242.,3242.
• Citation: 247 S.W. 232
• Parties: SCHOOL DIST. NO. 35 et al. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 32 et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

247 S.W. 232

SCHOOL DIST. NO. 35 et al. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 32 et al.

No. 3242.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 29, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; C. L. Henson, Judge.

Action by School District No. 35 and others against School District No. 32 and others. From judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part, with directions.

W. R. Adams, of Forsyth, and Moore, Barrett & Moore, of Ozark, for appellants.

C. R. Sharp, of Forsyth, and Alfred Page and Val Mason, both of Springfield, for respondents.

BRADLEY, J.

School district No. 35, a common school district, and its board of directors filed a bill in equity to cancel and annul the organization of consolidated school district No. 1 of Taney county. The venue was changed to Lawrence county where a trial was had, and plaintiffs' bill was dismissed, and consolidated school district No. 1 of Taney county was adjudged to have been duly and legally organized. From this judgment plaintiffs appealed.

Plaintiffs brought their cause against school district No. 32 and its board of directors, and against the consolidated district and its board of directors. No. 32, prior to the alleged consolidation, was known as the Forsyth town school district. Plaintiff alleged irregularity and fraud in the consolidation proceedings. School district No. 32 and its board and the consolidated district and its board answered separately, but to the same effect. Both denied irregularity and fraud, and asked that consolidated district No. 1 of Taney county be adjudged to have been duly organized and constituted in accordance with the law. The cause was submitted on an agreed statement of facts, to the effect that the organization of the consolidated district was free from fraud and irregularity.

It is also stipulated that the alleged consolidated district was formed from territory coextensive with the territory of No. 35 and No. 32. The consolidated district was organized under sections 11257, 11258, and 11259, R. S. 1919. There are two questions presented. First. Can plaintiff challenge the validity of the consolidated district in this character of proceeding? Second. Can a consolidated district be organized under section 11257 et seq., without embracing three or more districts? Plaintiffs contend that section 11258 et seq. should be considered as in pari materia with section 11255, and, if so considered, then the organization of the consolidated district designated as consolidated district No. 1 of Taney county cannot have a valid existence because it was created from territory coextensive with only two districts. We are precluded...