State Et Rel. Common Sch. Dist. No. 19 v. Mower Cnty., 22412.

• Decision Date: 21 October 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22412.,22412.
• Citation: 184 N.W. 791,150 Minn. 163
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE et rel. COMMON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 19 et al. v. MOWER COUNTY et al.

150 Minn. 163

184 N.W. 791

STATE et rel. COMMON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 19 et al.

v.MOWER COUNTY et al.

No. 22412.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct 21, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, Mower County; S. D. Catherwood, Judge.

Proceeding before the Board of County Commissioners of Mower County on petition of School District No. 77, praying that certain land in an adjoining district be made a part of the petitioning district, which petition was granted. Certiorari by the State on the relation of Common School District No. 19, and property owners residing in affected districts from the district court to review such order. Writ discharged and action of county board affirmed, and the property owners appeal. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Chapter 236, Laws 1919, conferring upon a school district the right to initiate proceedings before the board of county commissioners for the annexation of adjacent land to its district, construed, and held not an independent enactment on the subject-matter thereof, but as supplementary to Gen. St. 1913, § 2677, and conferring the same right upon the school district as is there extended to the freeholders.

As so construed the act is not unconstitutional.

Gen. St. 1913, § 2677, grants the right of appeal from orders made thereunder, and certiorari is not available as a method of review; the right of appeal extends to proceedings initiated by a school district under chapter 236, Laws 1919. Sasse & French, of Austin, and Parker & Gullickson, of Spring Valley, for appellants.

J. N. Nicholsen and B. E. Hughes, both of Austin, for respondents.

BROWN, C. J.

This proceeding for the change and alteration of the boundaries of certain school districts in Mower county was brought before the board of county commissioners on the petition of school district No. 77, praying that certain land in an adjoining district be annexed to and made a part of the petitioning district, as authorized and provided for by G. S. 1913, § 2677. After due notice and hearing the prayer of the petition was granted, and an order attaching the land to district No. 77 made accordingly. Thereafter, on the application of certain taxpayers and property owners residing and owning property in the affected districts, a writ of certiorari was issued by the district court in review of the order so made. On return of the writ the matter was duly brought to a hearing, and after consideration thereof the court made an order discharging the writ and in all things affirming the order of the county board. From that order the objecting property owners appealed to this court.

[1] The proceedings before the county board were instituted on the petition of school district No. 77, acting through its officers, under the authority conferred by the provisions of chapter 236, Laws 1919. The question presented by the appeal is whether that statute has any application to the particular relief sought, namely, to annex to district No. 77 certain adjacent land situated in an adjoining district. We answer it in the affirmative.

The statute provides as follows:

‘The school board of any school district in the state desiring to have land adjacent to or projecting into such district, set off as and made a part of said district, may petition the board of county commissioners of the county in which such district is located, therein setting forth the name and kind of district involved, a description of the land in question, the name of the owner thereof, and the reasons for the request, which said board upon the receipt of such petition, shall give notice of a hearing thereon as in other cases, and upon proof of the allegations in the petition, may make its order granting the same, and like notice of such change in the boundaries of such district shall be given, as in other cases.’

Although the statute on its face does not purport to be an amendment of or addition to the general statutes upon the same subject (G. S. 1913, § 2677 et seq.), its effect can be nothing other than...