School Dist. No. 58 v. Chappel

• Citation: 155 Mo. App. 498,135 S.W. 75
• Parties: SCHOOL DIST. NO. 58 OF PIKE COUNTY v. CHAPPEL, County Clerk, et al.
• Decision Date: 21 February 1911
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

135 S.W. 75

155 Mo. A. 498

SCHOOL DIST. NO. 58 OF PIKE COUNTY v. CHAPPEL, County Clerk, et al.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 21, 1911.

1. JUDGMENT (§ 474)—COLLATERAL ATTACK— CONCLUSIVENESS.

A judgment of a tribunal of limited jurisdiction is not open to collateral attack when the jurisdictional facts appear on the face of the record.

2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 24)— ALTERATION OF DISTRICTS—BOARD OF ARBITRATORS—DECISION—COLLATERAL ATTACK.

The decision of arbitrators appointed pursuant to Rev. St. 1899, § 9742 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463), providing that such arbitrators with the county school commissioner shall decide upon a proposed change in a school district is not open to collateral attack when the record of the proceeding shows the necessary jurisdictional facts.

3. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 24)— ALTERATION OF DISTRICTS—FINDINGS—COLLATERAL ATTACK.

Where the award of such arbitrators and the county school commissioner recites that in their judgment the change is necessary, and not for the acquisition of territory, such recitals are conclusive on collateral attack; the award being the only record required to be kept by that tribunal.

4. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 24)— PUBLIC SCHOOLS—CHANGE OF BOUNDARIES —PETITIONS FOR ELECTION — COLLATERAL ATTACK.

Though Rev. St. 1899, § 9742 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463), provides that the district clerk of each school district affected by a proposed change upon receiving a petition signed by ten qualified voters desiring such change shall give notice of an election, and, in case part of the districts affected do not approve the change, there may be an appeal to the county school commissioner, and arbitrators appointed by him, and that no change shall be made for mere acquisition of territory, the petition to the clerk need not, to render the proceedings invulnerable to collateral attack, state that the change of boundary desired was necessary, and not for the acquisition of territory, in order to give regularity to such an election and determination by the board of arbitrators.

5. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 24)— PUBLIC SCHOOLS—ALTERATION — PETITIONS FOR CHANGE—COLLATERAL ATTACK.

The recitals in the petition are immaterial in a collateral attack upon the judgment of the arbitrators, as the petition for the appeal to the county school commissioner confers complete jurisdiction upon him and the board.

6. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 24)— ALTERATION OF DISTRICTS—COLLATERAL ATTACK.

Equity will not in a collateral proceeding interfere with a finding by arbitrators appointed under Rev. St. 1899, § 9742 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463), providing for alterations of school districts.

7. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 24)— ALTERATION OF DISTRICTS—COLLATERAL ATTACK.

Where there is an adequate remedy at law by certiorari, determination of a board of arbitrators appointed under Rev. St. 1899, § 9742 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463), to consider a change in the boundaries of a school district, cannot be collaterally impeached in an equitable action.

Appeal from Louisiana Court of Common Pleas; D. H. Eby, Judge.

Action by School District No. 58, Pike County, against George W. Chappel, as County Clerk, and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Pearson & Pearson, for appellant. John W. Matson and L. G. Blair, for respondents.

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit in equity for injunctive relief. The finding and judgment were for defendant, and plaintiff prosecutes the appeal

Plaintiff is a school district in, and the principal defendant is county clerk of, Pike county. The other defendants are an adjoining school district in that county and the three members of its board of directors. The purpose of the proceeding is to enjoin and restrain the defendant county clerk from changing the boundary line between the two school districts involved on the records in his office, and extending certain taxes on his books as available to defendant school district which were formerly payable to plaintiff district, and from striking from the enumeration list of plaintiff district the names of certain school children as residents within that district. Defendant school district and its board of directors are also sought to be enjoined from asserting jurisdiction with respect to the territory involved. The controversy arises as a result of proceedings had under the statute authorizing the detachment from one school district of territory therein and its annexation to an adjoining district under certain circumstances or the change of the boundary line between two adjoining districts, and the question for decision in this collateral proceeding essentially relates to the validity of such proceeding, which is to be determined on the face of the record pertaining thereto alone. The court heard the proof as though this injunction proceeding were a direct attack upon the judgment of the statutory board of arbitration which found the fact, and ordered the change in the boundary line of the two school districts, but we believe all of this to be wholly immaterial in this injunction proceeding, for these matters in pais touching the necessity for the detachment of the territory from one district and its annexation to the other and as to whether the purpose of defendant district was the mere acquisition of territory are concluded from collateral inquiry by the judgment of the board of arbitrators thereon if its jurisdiction to proceed sufficiently appears affirmatively on the face of the record of the proceedings.

Plaintiff is school district No. 58 of township 55, range 3 west, northern division, Pike county, and defendant district is school district No. 59 of township 55, range 3 west, southern division, Pike county. The two districts adjoin. Our statute (section 9742, Rev. St. 1899) provides, substantially, that, when it is deemed necessary to change the boundary line of two school districts, it shall be the duty of the district clerk of each district affected upon the reception of a petition desiring such change, signed by 10 qualified voters residing in any district affected thereby, to post a notice of such desired change in at least 5 public places in each district interested 15 days prior to the time of the annual school meeting, and the voters when assembled shall decide such question by a majority vote of those who voted on such proposition. Acting on this statute, in March, 1909, more than 10 qualified voters of defendant district No. 59 signed and presented a petition to the district clerk of each of said districts desiring a change in the boundary line between the two to be voted upon at the ensuing school meeting, and praying the submission of a proposition to detach from district No. 58 the north half of section 12, township 55, range 3 west, and attaching the same to plaintiff district No. 59 with the change of the district lines accordingly. It appears that more than 15 days' notice of this proposition was given by each of the district clerks posting the required notices in more than 5 places in each district to be affected by the proposed change as required by the statute (section 9742, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463]), and that at the ensuing school meetings in the two districts the proposition was voted upon with the result that a majority of those voting in district No. 59 favored the change and a majority of those voting in district No. 58 opposed it. It is provided by the statute (section 9742, Rev. St. 1899) that, if all the districts affected do not vote in favor of such change, the matter may be referred to the county commissioner as by an appeal to the end of settling the controversy, and, upon such appeal being filed with the commissioner in writing within five days after the annual meeting, it is made the duty of such commissioner to appoint four disinterested men, resident taxpayers of the county, who, together with himself, shall constitute a board of arbitration, whose duty it shall be to consider the necessity for such proposed change, and render a decision thereon which decision shall be final. The county commissioner is authorized to give the casting vote on the matter in judgment when there shall be an equal division in opinion between the four arbitrators appointed by him.

Defendant district No. 59 filed its appeal with the county commissioner in due time under the statute in the form of a petition, setting forth all of the facts pertaining to the controversy and the disagreement arising from the separate vote of the two districts paid the $15 fee required, and prayed the appointment of a board of arbitrators to inquire into and determine the identical proposition set forth in the notices and voted upon at the school meetings. This petition appears to have been marked "filed" in due time by the county commissioner, and in accordance therewith a competent board of arbitrators was appointed and notified to assemble at the courthouse in Louisiana, Pike county, on the 20th day of April, which was accordingly done. Upon the board of arbitrators assembling, it appears the matter was duly inquired into by them, with the result that they found the proposed change of boundary line to be necessary, and that it was not sought for the mere purpose of the acquisition of territory by defendant district No. 59. The proceedings of the board of arbitrators and their finding and conclusion with respect to the proposition involved is evidenced by a writing made at the time, duly signed by all of the members of the board, given into the hands of the county school commissioner, and duly transmitted by such officer before the last day of April of that year to the district clerk of each of the districts interested therein in accordance with the statute. Section 9742, Rev. St. 1899. It appears, too, that the district clerk of each of the school districts affected duly recorded such finding and decisions of the board of arbitrators in...