School District No. 38 v. Rural High School District No. 6

• Decision Date: 10 May 1924
• Docket Number: 25,004
• Citation: 116 Kan. 40,225 P. 732
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 38, Johnson County, Appellant, v. RURAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 6, and A. M. MYERS, F. M. PLAKE and D. M. ALDEN, Appellees
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

225 P. 732

116 Kan. 40

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 38, Johnson County, Appellant, v. RURAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 6, and A. M. MYERS, F. M. PLAKE and D. M. ALDEN, Appellees

No. 25,004

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 10, 1924

Decided January, 1924.

Appeal from Johnson district court; JABEZ O. RANKIN, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. RURAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT--Legally Established--May Not be Challenged by One of the Ordinary School Districts Included Therein. The validity of a rural school district established under the statute providing for the organization of rural high school districts which included within its boundaries several ordinary school districts may not be challenged by one of the districts so included, even though the latter may itself have been conducting an accredited high school when the high school district was established.

2. SAME--A School District Not Authorized to Question the Existence or Boundaries of Another School District. While a school district may sue and be sued it is not authorized to bring an action questioning the existence, boundaries or validity of another school district. Such an action can only be brought in the name of the state by its duly authorized officers.

S. D Scott, and S. T. Seaton, both of Olathe, for the appellant.

Charles A. Stratton, of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellees.

Johnston, C. J. Hopkins, J., not sitting.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.:

This was an action by school district number 38 to enjoin rural high school district number 6 from exercising any authority or jurisdiction over the plaintiff. The court sustained the demurrer to plaintiff's petition and defendants appeal.

The petition alleged that school district number 38 was a lawfully organized district, and for the last four years had maintained a high school in addition to its common school courses, and that its high school had been duly authorized and accredited by the state board of education. It is alleged that rural high school district number 6 has recently been organized, comprising thirteen or fourteen school districts including the plaintiff district, and is attempting to include and exercise jurisdiction over school district number 38. It is averred that a large majority of the electors of school district number 38 protested against the inclusion of that district within the limits of the rural high school district, and when the election was held in the rural high school district the electors of district number 38 voted almost solidly against the establishment of the rural high school district.

There is an allegation that school district number 38 voted bonds in 1920 for the purpose of erecting buildings which were sold and are outstanding obligations of the district, and that from the proceeds of the bonds erected a large commodious high school and common school building sufficient in capacity to care for the high school and common school needs of the district for the next ten years, and has expended several thousand dollars in high school equipment which will be a great loss to the district if it is superseded by and included in the rural high school district.

It is further alleged that the rural high school, after its organization voted bonds in the sum of $ 150,000 upon the district, which will impose unjust and unnecessary burdens of taxation on school district number 38. It is further averred that a legal enumeration of the legal electors of the rural high school district had not been made; that the petition presented to the county commissioners of Johnson county for an election to establish the rural high school district did not properly describe the territory and give the boundaries of the district; that the notices did not set forth a true description of the territory comprising the district; that the petition did not state that the boundaries had been approved by the county superintendent and the county commissioners as the law requires; that the election notices were not posted by anyone having authority to post them, and that improper influences were used upon the voters to secure votes in favor of the organization of the rural high school district.

There is also an allegation that the organization of this high school district, including the plaintiff, will operate as a great and irreparable injury to plaintiff, and that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and is therefore entitled to an injunction to prevent defendant from exercising or attempting to exercise authority over the plaintiff as a part of the rural high school district.

The plaintiff discusses in an interesting way the question that an ordinary school district and a rural school district are separate entities each authorized to maintain an accredited high school, and that two such...