School District No. 36, Marshall County v. School District No. 31, Marshall County
| Decision Date | 14 July 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,848 - (230) |
| Citation | 158 N.W. 729,134 Minn. 82 |
| Parties | SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 36, MARSHALL COUNTY AND OTHERS v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 31, MARSHALL COUNTY AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Frank Dahlgren and others petitioned the county boards of Marshall and Polk counties under G.S. 1913, § 2677, for an enlargement of the boundaries of School District No. 31 of Marshall county by adding certain land within the boundaries of School District No. 36 and other districts. The county board made its order detaching certain territory from District No. 36. That district and Carl A. Johnson and others individually and as officers of School District No. 36 appealed to the district court for Marshall county. The appeal was heard before Watts, J., who after the jury had answered in the affirmative the question whether it was conducive to the good of the inhabitants of the territory affected that the proposed detachment should be made, made findings and affirmed the order of the county board. From an order denying their motion for a new trial, School District No. 36 and its officers appealed. Affirmed.
School district -- change in boundaries -- "territory affected" -- charge.
In this proceeding on appeal to the district court from an order of the county board detaching land from certain rural school districts and attaching it to an urban school district, it is held:
(1) The instructions of the trial court to the jury, in defining what territory was "affected" by the change in boundaries, were inconsistent, owing to an omission in an attempt to restate an instruction already given. No attention was called to this omission on the trial. The decision of the trial court to the effect that the jury was not misled or confused is sustained.
(2) Land within the petitioning district is "territory affected" by the change.
(3) The interests of the rural districts from which the lands are detached should not be considered independently from the interests of the urban district, so that the change should not be made if not conducive to the interests of the inhabitants of any one of the districts.
(4) There was no prejudicial error, if error at all, in not including, in the consideration of what territory was affected, land within districts that had not appealed from the order of the board.
(5) The action of the county board in this case was not arbitrary fraudulent, oppressive, without keeping the best interests of the territory in view and so as to work manifest injustice.
Julius J. Olson, Charles Loring, G. A. Youngquist and Alfred Halvorson, for appellants.
A. N Eckstrom, for respondents.
The title discloses the nature of this case. The petitioning School District No. 31, Marshall county, included within its borders the village of Alvarado, and had for some time maintained a semigraded school. The county board made its order detaching about ten sections of land from the adjoining Districts 36, 9 and 207, and attaching them to District 31. Of the ten sections so attached to the petitioning district, three and one-half sections were detached from District 36, reducing the size of that district from 15 sections to 11 1/2 sections. District 36 appealed to the district court of Marshall county from this order of the county board. The other districts from which land was detached did not appeal. The case was tried to a jury in the district court. The court submitted to the jury the special question as to whether it was "conducive to the good of the inhabitants of the territory affected" that the proposed detachment of land from District 36 should be made. The jury answered this question in the affirmative, the court made findings in accord with this view of the jury, and ordered judgment affirming the order of the county board. From an order denying their motion for a new trial, District 36 and its officers appeal to this court.
The first claim of appellant is that the instructions of the court to the jury were inconsistent and contradictory on a material issue. The court told the jury that the "territory affected," which the jury should take into consideration in determining whether it is conducive to the good of the inhabitants to have the detachment from District 36 made, is "the whole of District 31 as it was before any attachment was made to it and that part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial