School District No. 16 v. New London School District

• Decision Date: 03 March 1914
• Citation: 164 S.W. 688,181 Mo.App. 583
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 16, Appellant, v. NEW LONDON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

164 S.W. 688

181 Mo.App. 583

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 16, Appellant, v. NEW LONDON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

March 3, 1914

Appeal from Ralls Circuit Court.--Hon. William T. Ragland, Judge,

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

E. L Corwine for appellant.

(1) It is the duty of the board of arbitrators to consider the necessity of the proposed change. R. S. 1909, Sec. 10837. (2) A valid election upon sufficient petition and notice is necessary in each district to be affected by the proposed change before board of arbitrators has authority to consider an appeal. School District v. Smith, 90 Mo.App. 215. (3) Petition for appeal is the document upon which board of arbitrators acts, and it must show all necessary jurisdictional facts. State ex rel. v. Andrae, 216 Mo. 617. (4) Certiorari brings up only the judgment of the board of arbitrators, hence is not an adequate remedy. School District v. Pace, 113 Mo.App. 134.

R. F Roy, Ben E. Hulse and Jack Briscoe for respondent.

(1) The petition to the county superintendent for an appeal to the board of arbitrators stated all the facts necessary to show a valid election in both the districts and to show jurisdiction in the board of arbitrators. It shows that the petition for change was presented to the clerks of both the districts affected fifteen days prior to the annual school meeting, and that the notice was properly given in the defendant district. It also states that the proper notices to be posted in the plaintiff district were prepared and presented to the clerk of that district fifteen days before the annual school meeting. From the fact that the petition for the change was presented to the clerk of the plaintiff district in due time the law will presume that the clerk of that district did his duty and posted the notices. State ex rel. School District v. Andrae, 216 Mo. 617. (2) Appellant has no right to contend in this court that the petition for appeal in this matter was insufficient so far as lack of signature is concerned, for the petition concedes that such petition "signified" or "meant" that it was an appeal of the defendant district. The Kansas City Court of Appeals said in the State ex rel. v. Sexton, 151 Mo.App. 517, "that it would be most unjust to require technical exactness in these matters." It was held in State ex rel. v. Job, 205 Mo. 1, that the statute should be liberally construed, and this court laid down the same rule in School District No. 58 v. George W. Chappel et al., 155 Mo.App. 498.

NORTONI, J. Reynolds, P. J., and Allen, J., concur.

OPINION

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit to set aside the award, or judgment, it may be, of a board of arbitrators, erected under the school laws, to determine a controversy between school districts, touching a change of boundary lines. The finding and judgment were for defendant and plaintiff prosecutes the appeal. Neither fraud, accident nor mistake is averred in the petition and it may be the proceeding is anomalous. But be that as it may, we shall not pause to consider it, for the case may be properly disposed of on the theory on which it was tried and is presented here.

It appears that both plaintiff and defendant are incorporated public school districts under the laws of the State. Plaintiff district No. 16 is a rural school district in Ralls county, lying immediately adjacent to the city of New London, the county seat. Defendant, the school district of New London, is commonly known as a town school district and embraces that city. It was desired to change the boundary lines between these two districts, which were adjoining, so as to include a parcel of the territory situate within plaintiff district No. 16 in defendant New London district. The proposition to change the boundary lines and incorporate some of the territory of plaintiff district into defendant district was voted upon at the annual school meeting held in the school districts on the first Tuesday in April, 1910. The vote in plaintiff district was unanimous against the change, while the proposition carried by a sufficient majority in defendant district. One of the interested parties--that is, plaintiff district--having voted against the proposed change, the matter was promptly referred, within five days after the election--that is, on April 8--to the county superintendent of public schools, as by an appeal being filed with him in writing on the part of the New London, or defendant, school district. Upon such appeal so being filed with the county superintendent of public schools, as is provided in section 10837, Revised Statutes 1909, that officer proceeded to and did immediately appoint four disinterested men, resident taxpayers of Ralls county, to act and to constitute together with himself a board of arbitration to consider the necessity for such proposed change and render a decision thereon. This board of arbitration so constituted assembled at the courthouse in the city of New London on the 18th day of April, 1910, and considered the subject-matter of the controversy, and among other things found that there was a necessity for the proposed change in the district boundaries, so as to exclude the idea that one district was merely encroaching upon the other simply for the acquisition of territory. The board of arbitrators thereupon unanimously ordered a change of boundary lines to be made according to the prayer in the petition and according to the notices posted, etc. All of the members of the board of arbitrators concurred in this finding, award and judgment, if it is to be so called, and accordingly signed the report on April 18, 1910, to be transmitted to the clerks of the two districts. It sufficiently appears that, according to the rule announced in State ex rel. v. Andrae, 216 Mo. 617, 116 S.W. 561, the board of arbitrators was properly constituted and possessed of jurisdiction over the subject-matter. This is so clear that it is not even necessary to prolong the opinion in discussing it. Indeed, this suit proceeds on that theory, for it seeks to set the award or judgment of the arbitrators aside as if such is valid and sufficient on its face but because of matters in pais, which may be reviewed only in a direct proceeding to vacate that judgment.

The petition sets out the essential antecedent facts and then the controversy between the two districts and the appeal to the county superintendent; the matter of the appointment of four resident taxpayers of the county by and to act together with the superintendent as a board of arbitrators; and that this board so constituted assembled at the courthouse in New London, considered the matter and disposed of it on April 18, 1910. It includes, too, and sets forth a copy of the finding and award, or judgment, of the board of arbitrators, so constituted, which is in all respects sufficient on its face, and then prays that the same be set aside and vacated. The reasons assigned for setting aside and vacating the finding, award, or judgment of the board of arbitrators are thus set forth in the petition:

"Plaintiff says that said board of arbitrators did not hear or consider any evidence whatever in support of certain of the findings contained in said decision and judgment, and that, in fact and in truth, no facts nor evidence of any kind upon which to base such findings ever existed in this, to-wit:

"No evidence was heard or considered by said board relative to the posting of notices of the intended submission of the proposition to change the boundary line between said districts, and, in fact and truth, no proper legal notices of such proposed change were ever posted in the plaintiff district.

"No evidence was heard or considered by said board, to the effect that said proposition had been submitted to and voted upon by the voters of said plaintiff district, and, in fact and truth, said proposition never was legally submitted to and voted upon by said district.

"No evidence was heard or considered by said board relative to the necessity of said proposed change, and, in fact and truth, said change was and is absolutely unnecessary, and was sought by the defendant district for the sole purpose of acquiring territory from the plaintiff district."

There is evidence by one witness, Emison, to the effect that he does not remember "of any evidence before the board of arbitrators in that hearing, of notices being posted in Flint Hill school district, or District No. 16. The only evidence introduced before the board of arbitrators was a plat of the territory to be changed." There is evidence by another witness, Keach, that "the only papers he remembers of at the hearing before the board of arbitrators were the petition to appoint the arbitrators and the plat of the land they wanted set off to the New London district." This constitutes all the evidence...