School Dists. Nos. 18, 19, 29, 30, v. Yates

• Decision Date: 08 January 1912
• Citation: 161 Mo. App. 107,142 S.W. 791
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTS. NOS. 18, 19, 29, 30, WEBSTER COUNTY, v. YATES, County School Superintendent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

142 S.W. 791

161 Mo. App. 107

SCHOOL DISTS. NOS. 18, 19, 29, 30, WEBSTER COUNTY, v. YATES, County School Superintendent.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 8, 1912.

1. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 39)— FORMATION OF NEW DISTRICTS—DECISION OF ARBITRATORS.

A decision recited that "we, a board of arbitrators, called by the county superintendent," etc. The county superintendent reported to the clerks of school districts involved, "I am transmitting to you the decision of the arbitrators appointed by me to pass on the appeal on the question of taking certain territory from your district." An amended award by the board recited, "We, the undersigned, being the board of arbitrators appointed by K., County Superintendent of Schools." Held, on certiorari, that these statements sufficiently showed that the members of the board of arbitrators were appointed as such by the county superintendent of schools.

2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 39)— FORMATION OF NEW DISTRICTS—APPEAL—PRESUMPTIONS.

As the statute requires no other record to be kept by the county superintendent of schools on appeals to him in proceedings relating to formation of new school districts than the decision of the board of arbitrators appointed by him, and as the acts of an officer who has once acquired jurisdiction of a matter will be presumed to be regular, an appeal in proceedings to form a new school district having been carried regularly to the superintendent, the report of the arbitrators appointed by him will be deemed valid on certiorari though it nowhere appeared that the members were "four disinterested men, resident taxpayers of the county," as required (Rev. St. 1909, § 10,837).

3. CERTIORARI (§ 64)—SCOPE OF HEARING.

The scope of a writ of certiorari is to bring up for review from an inferior tribunal its records which go to show the jurisdiction of that tribunal, and the superior court can only consider such errors and defects as appear on the face of the record, and which are jurisdictional in their nature.

4. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 39)— QUO WARRANTO (§ 8)—IRREGULARITY OF— OFFICIAL ACTS—MATTERS NOT SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS.

Where the records and proceedings relating to the formation of a new school district and an appeal therein to the county superintendent did not show any irregular action, but did not show whether arbitrators appointed therein were disinterested resident taxpayers, the remedy, if they were not so qualified, was not certiorari, but quo warranto, in which facts dehors the record would be available.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Webster County; C. H. Skinker, Judge.

Certiorari by School Districts Nos. 18, 19, 29, and 30 of Webster County against Lon Yates, Superintendent of Public Schools of Webster County. From the quashing of the writ, relators appeal. Affirmed.

R. S. Phillips, for appellants. J. P. Smith and J. E. Haymes, for respondent.

NIXON, P. J.

This action originated in the circuit court of Webster county by a writ of certiorari sued out by the appellants, School Dists. Nos. 18, 19, 29, and 30, of said county. Upon the quashing of the writ, the relators appealed to this court.

The proceedings which gave rise to the action related to the proposed change of boundary lines between School Dists. Nos. 18, 19, 28, 29, and 30, by which it was intended to establish a new district by taking certain territory from the said named districts, and with the territory thus detached to form a new district, pursuant to the provisions of section 10,837, R. S. 1909. The petition for the change was duly filed, notices were properly posted, and the question of the formation of the new district was voted on in all of said five districts at the annual meeting in April 1911. Four of said school districts—18, 19, 29, and 30—voted against the detachment of the territory and the formation of the new district, but district numbered 28 voted for the organization of the new district. An appeal was accordingly duly made under the law to the county school superintendent, as authorized by section 10,837, R. S. 1909. The matter of the formation of the new district was in this way referred to the superintendent of public schools of Webster county, the appeal having been filed with him in writing within five days after said annual meeting, and no question is made of the sufficiency of the appeal. Whereupon, he appointed four men to constitute a board of arbitration to consider the formation of the new district and to ascertain whether it was just and necessary that it should be formed. Thereafter, the board met, considered the matters submitted, and rendered the following written decision in favor of the proposed change of districts (formal parts omitted): "Marshfield, Mo., April 8, 1911. We, a board of arbitrators called by the county superintendent, met to consider the formation of a new school district asked for by the following petitioners (naming them). We, the board, find the formation of the new district to be just and necessary, and adjudge that the said district be formed."

Thereafter, the board of arbitration filed another written decision, as follows (formal parts omitted): "We, the undersigned, being the board of arbitrators appointed by O. P. Keller, county superintendent of schools of Webster county, Missouri, to determine the appeal upon the question voted upon at the annual school meeting 1911, of School Districts Numbers 18, 19, 28, 29, and 30, in said Webster county, and wherein appeal from the decision of the voters at said annual meeting upon the question of taking certain territory from said named districts and with said detached territory forming a new district, a description whereof will more fully appear from the paper hereto attached and made a part hereof, do hereby certify that we met in Marshfield, Mo., on April 18, 1911, and after hearing the evidence adduced for and against said proposed change do find that said proposed district should be formed as petitioned for and voted upon at said annual meeting, and that the lines of said named districts should be changed and the parts so detached, as petitioned for and voted upon at the annual school meetings, in said districts, be and the same are hereby formed into a new district in said Webster county, Mo."

It appears that at the time the appeal was taken and at the time the decisions were rendered by the board of arbitration, O. P. Keller was the superintendent of public schools of Webster county. The decision was transmitted to the clerks of the several districts, and its sufficiency is the sole ground of attack made on the proceedings, both in the circuit court and in this court. At the time the petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in the circuit court of Webster county, Lon Yates had succeeded O. P. Keller in the office of superintendent of public schools of Webster county, and the writ issued by the court was directed to him. His return to the writ was as follows (formal parts omitted): "In obedience to the writ of certiorari, issued by you to me directing me to certify up the papers in the above cause, under my official signature, I herewith return all the records and proceedings in the above cause, which records were found by me on file in the office of the county clerk of Webster county, as fully and entirely as I am able to secure them among the papers and records of said proceedings which are on file in said county clerk's office which were filed by my predecessor, O. P. Keller, he declaring to me that he filed all the papers, records and proceedings of said cause in the office of the said county clerk. Witness my hand and official signature, this the 6th day of May, A. D. 1911. [Signed.]"

It appears from this that the records and proceedings contained in the return were found in the office of the county clerk and were filed in that office by respondent's predecessor, O. P. Keller. It will also be seen from this return that there is no showing that all of the papers and records in relation to the action of Keller in regard to the appeal and his action in regard to the formation...