School District No. 14 v. School District No. 27

• Decision Date: 02 April 1917
• Citation: 193 S.W. 634,195 Mo.App. 504
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14, Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 27, Respondent
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

193 S.W. 634

195 Mo.App. 504

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14, Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 27, Respondent

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

April 2, 1917

Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court.--Hon. A. D. Burns, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

W. S Herndon and F. B. Ellis for appellant.

Frost & Frost for respondent.

OPINION

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff and defendant are adjoining school districts in Clinton county. Defendant district undertook to change the boundaries between the two and begun proceeding for that purpose as authorized by section 10837, Revised Statutes 1909. That proceeding resulted in a board of arbitrators formed under this statute, deciding to take from plaintiff district certain territory and attach it to defendant district. The finding and decision were written and entered upon the records. Afterwards plaintiff district filed the present bill to set aside that judgment on the ground of fraud and that the board had no jurisdiction to render it. Defendant filed a demurrer on the ground that the petition did not state a cause of action. This was sustained and plaintiff appealed. The case was before this court on another occasion on petition for a writ of prohibition (School District No. 14 v. Sims, 193 Mo.App. 480, 186 S.W. 4) where the writ was denied.

The statute aforesaid provides "that no new district shall be created or boundary line changed by which any district shall be formed containing within its limits by actual count less than twenty persons of school age, or by which any district shall be left containing within its limits by actual count less than twenty persons of school age. . . . That in changing the boundary line between two established districts, one district shall not encroach upon the other simply for the acquisition of territory."

The petition sets out the finding and judgment of the arbitrators whereby it appears that certain lands were taken from plaintiff district and attached to defendant district. And it is set out in said finding and judgment "that said change is not simply for the acquisition of territory by school district 27, and that by said change there will not be left in either of said districts less than twenty school children of school age, and said change is accordingly ordered."

It will be noticed that the finding and judgment, while stating that the change is not simply for the acquisition of territory by defendant district, and that neither district will be left with less than twenty persons of school age, omits to find that there were any persons of school age residing in the territory taken from plaintiff district and attached to defendant. If there were no school children on these transferred lands, no other reason being assigned, it is manifest that the change was merely to acquire more territory; and while it is stated in the filing of the board in the language of the statute, that that was not the object, yet no finding is made on the important fact, whether there were any children on such lands. If it had been found that there were no children living on the transferred...