School District No. 45 v. School District No. 8

• Decision Date: 07 June 1915
• Docket Number: 33
• Citation: 177 S.W. 892,119 Ark. 149
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 45 v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 8
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

177 S.W. 892

119 Ark. 149

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 45 v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 8

No. 33

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 7, 1915

Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

E. H Vance, Jr., for appellant.

The petition did not contain a majority of all the electors of the district, to be "divided."Kirby'sDig § 7544;Acts, 1891, p. 194.DistrictNo. 8 was not divided, and it took a majority of the electors of DistrictNo. 8 to give the court jurisdiction.54 Ark. 134;105 Ark 47;102 Ark. 401.

J. C. Ross, for appellee.

The circuit court followed the statute.Kirby'sDig., § 7544;54 Ark. 134.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is a controversy over the change of the boundary line between two adjoining school districts in Hot Spring County transferring about three sections of land from DistrictNo. 45 and attaching the same to DistrictNo. 8.The proceedings were inaugurated on the petition of electors which constituted a majority of the aggregate number of electors of both districts, but all of the petitioners save one resided in DistrictNo. 8.There were only two voters residing upon the disputed territory sought to be transferred from one district to the other, and one of them signed the petition, being the only elector in DistrictNo. 45 who signed.The county court refused to grant the prayer of the petition, but on appeal to the circuit court the prayer was granted and judgment was rendered changing the boundaries of the districts so as to transfer the disputed territory to DistrictNo. 8.

The decision of the case involved a construction of the statute on this subject, which reads as follows: "The county court shall have the right to form new school districts or change the boundaries thereof upon a petition of a majority of all the electors residing upon the territory of the districts to be divided."Kirby's Digest, § 7544.

On both sides of the controversy, the case of Hudspeth v. Wallis,54 Ark. 134, 15 S.W. 184, is cited, with the contention that it is decisive of this case, but we do not find that it has any bearing on the question now involved.In that case, the petitioners were attempting to form a new school district out of territory taken from four old districts, and the contention of those opposing the formation of the district was that the statute required a petition of a majority of the electors of each district to be divided, but the court held that the statute meant that there must be a majority of the aggregate number of electors of all the districts to be divided.The court, in deciding that case, literally followed the language of the statute.

Now, it will be observed from the narrative of the facts that DistrictNo. 45 is the only one to be divided.The disputed territory is to be added to DistrictNo. 8, but that district is not to be divided.So, if we follow the language of the statute literally, it leads necessarily to the conclusion that a petition of a majority of the electors of DistrictNo 45, which is the one to be divided, is required, and that the number of electors in DistrictNo. 8 is not to be taken into account at all in determining the requisite number of petitioners who could authorize the county court to make the change.Counsel for appellee treat the statute as providing that a petition of a majority of each of the districts to...