Seaman v. Baughman

• Decision Date: 06 February 1891
• Citation: 82 Iowa 216,47 N.W. 1091
• Parties: SEAMAN v. BAUGHMAN ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

82 Iowa 216

47 N.W. 1091

SEAMAN

v.BAUGHMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 6, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Scott county; C. M. WATERMAN, Judge.

Action in equity to restrain the collection of a tax voted by the electors of a district township for the purpose of erecting a school-house. After a hearing upon the merits the petition of plaintiff was dismissed, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendants for costs. The plaintiff appeals.C. A. Ficke, for appellant.

Ambrose P. McGuirk, and Heinz & Hirschl, for appellees.

ROBINSON, J.

At the annual meeting of the electors of the district township of Sheridan in the county of Scott, held on the second Monday in March in the year 1889, a tax of $1,500 was voted upon the property of the district for the construction of a school-house in subdistrict No. 9. The plaintiff is a resident and tax-payer of the district, and the defendants are its officers. The plaintiff claims that the tax specified is illegal, and asks that defendants be restrained from certifying it to the board of supervisors of Scott county, and that it be declared illegal and void.

1. The first objection made to the validity of the tax is that the vote by which the electors attempted to authorize it was not taken by ballot. It is not clear how the vote was taken; some who were present testifying that it was by a showing of hands, and others that each voter manifested his wishes by rising. But it is agreed that the vote was not taken by ballot. Section 1717 of the Code authorizes the electors of a district township, when legally assembled at an annual meeting, to appoint a chairman and secretary, in the absence of the regular officers, to direct the sale or other disposition of any school-house, or the site thereof, and of other property, and to direct the manner in which the proceeds arising from such property shall be applied; to determine what additional branches shall be taught in the schools of the district, or to delegate any of those powers to the board of directors; to authorize the obtaining of highways necessary for proper access to the school-houses of the district; to vote a tax on the taxable property of the district for the purchase of grounds and the construction of school-houses, the payment of school-house debts, to procure libraries, and to pay for highways. Also to instruct the board of directors to transfer any surplus in the school-house fund not appropriated to either the contingent or teachers' fund. The word “vote” is used only in connection with the provision in regard to a tax, but it is manifest that the usual and necessary method of exercising the powers specified is by voting. The elector in some mannermakes known his wishes in regard to pending measures, in order that he may be counted for or against them. He thus votes, whether his wishes are expressed verbally, by ballot, or by other means. Usually votes are given by ballot or viva voce, but it is sufficient, in the absence of a requirement to the contrary, to give them in any recognized manner. Therefore the fact that the word “vote” is used in connection with the provision for a tax is not entitled to any special significance. There is nothing in the statute which in terms directs the method of taking the vote. Section 1789 of the Code provides that “no district township or subdistrict meeting shall organize earlier than nine o'clock A. M., nor adjourn before 12 o'clock M.” And it is argued from this that the general assembly designs that the votes authorized by section 1717 shall be taken by ballot, to the end that electors may appear at any time before noon, and vote upon measures before the meeting. It is true, the electors of a district may meet at 9 o'clock, and at once transact the business of the meeting, and be prepared to...