School Dist. No. 61 v. McFarland

• Decision Date: 06 February 1911
• Citation: 154 Mo. App. 411,134 S.W. 673
• Parties: SCHOOL DIST. NO. 61, TP. 36 N., RANGE 5 E., ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, v. McFARLAND et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

134 S.W. 673

154 Mo. A. 411

SCHOOL DIST. NO. 61, TP. 36 N., RANGE 5 E., ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, v. McFARLAND et al.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 6, 1911.

1. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 32)— ORGANIZATION—CHANGING BOUNDARIES.

Rev. St. 1899, §§ 9739-9859 (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 4461-4518), provides for the organization of subschool districts, or so-called "country school districts." Section 9742 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463) provides that when it is deemed necessary to form a new district composed of two or more entire districts, or parts of two or more districts, or to divide one district to form two new districts, or to change the boundary lines of two or more districts, the district clerk of the district affected, upon receiving a petition for the change signed by 10 qualified voters, shall post a notice of the proposed change, and the voters shall decide thereon by majority vote. Held, that the section did not authorize a country school district to attach to itself part of a village school district organized under sections 9860-9879a (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 4519-4530), providing for the organization of village school districts; section 9742 applying only to common school districts.

2. STATUTES (§ 205) — CONSTRUCTION — INTRINSIC AIDS.

In order to correctly construe a statute, it is necessary to ascertain what its subject is.

3. INJUNCTION (§ 17)—ADEQUACY OF LEGAL REMEDY.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3649 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2055), authorizing relief by injunction to prevent the doing of any legal wrong whenever an adequate legal remedy cannot be afforded by an action for damages, an injunction may issue where an action for damages, as such, is not adequate, though there may be another adequate legal remedy: the section merely confirming the general rule of equity.

4. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 39)— CHANGE OF BOUNDARIES—INJUNCTION.

An injunction will issue under Rev. St. 1899, § 3649, to prevent a common school district from illegally detaching a part of a village school district and attaching such part to itself, since to permit such illegal act would work irreparable injury to the inhabitants of the detached part.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Joseph J. Williams, Judge.

Action by School District No. 61, Township 36 North, Range 5 East, St. Francois County, Missouri, by its Board of Directors, composed of C. E. Norwine and others, against F. L. McFarland and others. From a judgment dissolving a temporary injunction, plaintiffs appeal to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Transferred to this court, and jurisdiction waived. Reversed and remanded to set aside order and enter judgment for plaintiffs perpetuating the injunction.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving a temporary injunction which had been issued on June 10, 1907, upon the application of appellants as members of the board of directors of school district No. 61, alleged to be a village school district, organized under the provisions of article 2, c. 154, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 4519-4530). The respondents J. E. Blankenship, George W. Howell, and Charles D. Carr constituted the board of directors of school district No. 7, a common school district, organized under the provisions of article 1, c. 154, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 4459-4518), and respondent F. L. McFarland was the clerk of school district No. 7, and respondent J. A. Lawrence was clerk of the county court of St. Francois county (in which county this case originated, it having reached Jefferson county by change of venue).

The petition alleges that at the annual school meeting and election held on the first Tuesday in April, 1907, an attempt was made to detach a portion of the territory belonging to school district No. 61, which territory contained about 200 children of school age and which territory yielded school district No. 61 about $1,000 annually in school taxes; that at said meeting and election a majority of the voters in district No. 61 voted against the proposition, and a majority of the voters in district No. 7 voted in favor of the proposition; that thereupon an appeal was taken to the commissioner, who appointed a board of arbitration, and a decision was rendered in favor of district No. 7, and in favor of the proposed change. The petition recites that J. A. Lawrence, the clerk of the county court of St. Francois county, is about to recognize as correct an enumeration list containing the names of school children in the portion of district No. 61 which was attempted to be detached; that the board of directors of school district No. 7 is about to make and file an estimate for the purpose of school taxation and is threatening to fix the rate of taxation on the theory that the territory attempted to be attached is a part of school district No. 7; that said J. A. Lawrence is threatening and is about to recognize said estimate upon the books and records of his office, and is threatening to extend the school taxes of said school district No. 7 according to the threatened estimates so as to make the school taxes, so extended, when collected, payable to school district No. 7, on the territory which was attempted to be detached and which plaintiff avers is and was part of plaintiff district; that unless relief is granted the said school children will be enumerated in district No. 7, where they do not belong, and property belonging to village school district No. 61 will be wrongfully taken from it, the rate of taxation in said district will be greatly increased, and the district will be greatly injured and deprived of revenue which rightly belongs to it; that there is no authority of law for school district No. 7, it being a common school district organized and existing under article 1, c. 154, Rev. St. 1899, to detach property from village school district No. 61, it being a village school district organized and existing under article 2, c. 154, Rev. St. 1899; that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and unless relief is granted irreparable injury will be done plaintiff. The prayer of the petition is that defendants be enjoined from changing the boundary lines of plaintiff district by detaching said territory from said district and attaching it to school district No. 7; that they be enjoined from enumerating the children of school age residing in said territory as school children of district No. 7; that they be enjoined from striking from the enumeration list of plaintiff district the name of any person residing in said territory; that J. A. Lawrence be enjoined from extending on the tax books of the county taxes levied on property within said territory attempted to be detached so that said taxes will be collected for district No. 7, instead of plaintiff district; that defendants be enjoined from in any manner recognizing the above-described territory as part of school district No. 7; and that they be required to treat as null and void the decision of the board of arbitrators and the county school commissioner; and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and proper. After hearing the evidence, the court, on April 24, 1908, rendered its judgment dissolving the temporary injunction.

The evidence tends to show that school district No. 61 was organized under article 2, c. 154, Rev. St. 1899, in 1901, and embraced the incorporated town of Flat River, and was recognized as a village school district. The other material allegations of fact in the petition are sustained by the evidence. It was shown that, after receiving notice of the decision of the commissioner's board, the county clerk received and filed an enumeration list made by order of the school board of district No. 7, which showed 444 school children in district No. 7, as it originally stood, and 215 school children in the newly acquired portion. The evidence shows that the county clerk at the time of the service of the temporary injunction was about to extend the taxes on the tax books in accordance with the decision of the commissioner's board.

Hensley & Revelle and Clyde Williams, for appellants. Jerry B. Burks, for respondents.

NIXON, P. J. (after stating the facts as above).

Only two questions are made on this appeal, and they will be considered in their order. Appellants earnestly insist that the election was a nullity, for the reason that a common school district cannot detach a portion of a village school district; there being no statute conferring such right.

The organization of school districts in this state is provided for by chapter 154, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 4459-4568). Article 1 of that chapter, in which section 9742 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463) is contained, in addition to some general provisions, provides for the organization of subdistricts, or what is generally known as country school districts. Article 2, for the organization of city, town, and village school districts. Article 3, for the organization of school districts in cities of more than 50,000 and less than 300,000 inhabitants. Article 4, for the organization of school districts in cities of 300,000 inhabitants or over. Section 9875, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4527), provides that a country school district or part thereof adjacent to a village school district may be attached to the latter. No provision is made in this article for the...