School District No. 3 v. School District No. 2

• Decision Date: 24 November 1922
• Docket Number: 1090
• Citation: 210 P. 562,29 Wyo. 80
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

210 P. 562

29 Wyo. 80

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2

No. 1090

Supreme Court of Wyoming

November 24, 1922

APPEAL from District Court, Platte County; HON. WILLIAM C. MENTZER Judge.

Action by School District No. 3 in the County of Platte, State of Wyoming, against School District No. 2 in the County of Platte, from which plaintiff district had been created, to recover all school expenses of the new district until it had received from the county treasurer the school moneys allowed to it and the taxes voted by it.

Thomas J. Bryant, for plaintiff and appellant.

The legislature is vested with complete authority of school funds, (25 Amer. & Eng. Ency. 2nd Ed. p. 63) and may authorize a diversion of funds raised by taxation in one district to the use of other districts (24 R. C. L. 592.) In the enactment of Section 2233 C. S. 1920, the legislature intended that funds in the treasury of an original school district should be used to meet school expenses in a new district created therefrom until the new district has received its proper apportionment of school moneys and taxes. Under the circumstances a new district cannot receive its school money until it is paid over by the county treasurer after the end of the year in which it has been assessed and collected. The language of the statute is clear and the refusal of the original district to pay the expenses of a new district on demand, authorizes a recovery in an action at law.

The trial court erred in admitting evidence tending to show that the funds of the old district were exhausted at the close of the spring term of 1920. Legal inhibitions against the increase of the indebtedness of a school district extend only to voluntary indebtedness and not to such as is thrust upon them by operation of the law, (24 R. C. L. 610.) The legislature has the right to control funds raised in the separate districts by taxation and may appropriate the same without the consent of the local bodies even though in so doing some of the funds raised by taxation in one district are diverted to the use of other districts, but it may not divert them to other than school purposes, (24 R. C. L. 592.) In many of the states the method of diverting the assets and liabilities between school districts where a new district is cut off from an old district, is provided for by statute (Ind. District of Corwith v. District Twp. 107 Ia 73, 77 N.W. 525; and see also 63 Ark. 433.) In such cases the statute must be strictly followed. Our statute has made no provision for a division of assets, but has clearly provided that until such time as the new district shall receive its proper apportionment of school moneys and taxes, its expenses shall be paid by the original district. The new district in compliance with Sec. 2239-2783 C. S. 1920, voted a special tax at the annual meeting, but this tax money could not be apportioned to it until it had been collected by a public authority and apportioned and paid over to it by the county treasury.

It is respectfully submitted that the judgment of the court below was erroneous and should be reversed.

W. E Mullen, for respondent.

The intention of the statute, Sec. 2233 C. S. 1920, is that a new district should have and use its proportion of the funds in the treasury of the parent district derived from taxation and other revenue received, before division. The fiscal year of school districts ends on April 30th (Sec. 2238 C. S 1920.) School operations commence about September first and continue into the following year. Provision is made for school district revenue by voting a tax at the district meeting in May and other proceedings during the summer, to provide for nine months of school, usually commencing on September 1st. In this case all of the revenue collected by the parent district, before division, was used in discharging contracts with teachers and other expenses created prior to division, that is, for completing the school year in both the old and new districts. At the May meeting in 1920 both the old and new districts voted a special tax, each upon property within their respective boundaries and each of them thereafter proceeded to provide for revenue, independent of the other, to meet the expenses of the fall term of school, commencing in September, 1920.

An amendment of this statute made by Chap. 133 L. 1921, Sec. 2 clearly indicates the intention of the legislature. The Constitution has not delegated to the legislature power to divert funds raised by taxation for a given purpose to be used for some other purpose. Art. XV, Section 13 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied, except in pursuance of law, and every law imposing a tax shall state distinctly the object of the same and to which it only shall be applied. (State v. Comm'rs., 8 Wyo. 104; School Dist. v. Comm'rs., 15 Wyo. 82.) The apportionment of a tax consists of a selection of the subjects to be taxed and in laying down the rule by which to measure the contribution which each of the subjects shall make to the tax. (Barfield v. Gleason, 111 Ky. 491, 64 N.E. 964; Broadway Church v. McAtee, 71 Ky. 508.) Apportion means to divide, to distribute among two or more. (Jones v. Holgapfel, 11 Okla. 405, 68 P. 511.) An apportionment may be made by act of...