State ex inf. Barker v. Smith
| Decision Date | 01 June 1917 |
| Citation | 196 S.W. 17,271 Mo. 168 |
| Parties | THE STATE ex inf. JOHN T. BARKER, Attorney-General, v. EDWARD C. SMITH et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Platte Circuit Court. -- Hon. A. D. Burnes, Judge.
Affirmed.
James H. Hull and George W. Day for appellants.
(1) Defendants did not assert the right to the same office; each claimed his right by a separate election and qualification to a separate and distinct office of one board of directors. Therefore the right to challenge their authority to act did not come within the provisions of Sec. 2633, Revised Statutes 1907, and the defendants were right in raising this question in their separate answers. State ex rel. v. Vallins, 140 Mo. 535. (2) The proceedings for the organization of the consolidated district failed to sufficiently indicate whether the entire territory shown on the plat, or only that portion within the heavier and crooked lines thereon, was intended to embrace said district. Therefore no consolidated district was lawfully formed. Laws 1913, p. 722, sec. 3; School District v. District, 94 Mo. 618. (3) If Consolidated District Number Two ever had legal existence, it was forfeited by its failure to provide for an eight months' school for the period of one year. R. S. 1909, sec. 10776; State ex rel. v. Claxton, 263 Mo. 701.
Frank W. McAllister, Attorney-General, for respondent; Guy B. Park N. B. Anderson and J. G. L. Harvey of counsel.
(1) It was proper to join the three directors as defendants in one office. Such has been the practice. Sec. 1732, R. S. 1909; State ex rel. v. Stone, 152 Mo. 202; State ex rel. v. McClain, 187 Mo. 409; State ex rel. v Claxton, 263 Mo. 701; State ex rel. v Wetherby, 45 Mo. 17; State ex rel. v. McReynolds, 61 Mo. 203; State ex rel. v. Small, 131 Mo.App. 478. Sec. 2633, R. S. 1909, has no application to this case, such section relating only to the statutory quo warranto whereas this is a common-law proceeding. State ex rel. v. Beecher, 160 Mo. 78. (2) The plat posted by the superintendent of schools complied with the statute. In any event substantial compliance only is required, and a liberal rule is applied in determining whether there has been substantial compliance. State ex inf. v. Jones, 266 Mo. 201; State ex rel. v. Job, 205 Mo. 34; State v. Morgan, 187 S.W. 57; State ex rel. v. Cloud, 192 Mo.App. 322. As to what constitutes a compliance with the clause requiring plat to be posted is determined in State ex rel. v. Glaves, 186 S.W. 687. (3) If the districts were regularly consolidated, such consolidation automatically destroyed the corporate existence of the component districts. Section 6 of the Buford Act so provides, and the entire act contemplates such destruction of the old districts. (4) The corporate existence of the consolidated school district can only be raised by the State in a direct proceeding instituted for that purpose. Black v. Early, 208 Mo. 307; State v. Woods, 233 Mo. 380; Bank v. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 51; State ex rel. v. Birch, 186 Mo. 219.
This is a proceeding by quo warranto, instituted in the circuit court of Platte County by the Attorney-General, against the defendants, to oust them from the office of school directors of School District No. 26 of that county. The trial resulted in a judgment of ouster, and after taking proper preliminary steps, the defendants appealed the cause to this court.
While there were several questions presented to the trial court, there are but two pressed upon this court for determination. This very much simplifies the facts, and renders it unnecessary to burden the opinion with the pleading or preliminary steps taken to bring the case to issue; also eliminates all facts not bearing directly upon the questions here presented. The undisputed facts are as follows:
On February 24, 1914, there was presented to the school superintendent of said county, a petition signed by sixty resident citizens of School Districts Nos. 20, 21, 25, 26, 32, 33 and 34. On receipt of said petition the superintendent of schools visited and investigated the needs of the community from which the petition came, and determined the boundaries of the proposed consolidated district. Thereupon a special meeting of the qualified voters of the proposed consolidated district was called for the purpose of considering the question of consolidation, the date of the election being fixed for March 19th, notice of which election was duly given by posting within the proposed district ten notices in public places, stating the place, time and purpose of the meeting; the notice was given fifteen days prior to the election; the superintendent also caused to be posted within the proposed district five plats thereof; the superintendent filed a copy of the petition and of the plat with the county clerk, and took one to the polls; the meeting was called to order by the superintendent, and C. V. Hull was elected chairman, and W. P. Woodson secretary; tellers were appointed and the result of the election was 123 for consolidation, and 104 against; whereupon a board of directors for the consolidated district was elected; the proceedings of this meeting were certified by the chairman and secretary to the county clerk, and also to the superintendent of schools -- all in accordance with the statutory requirements.
So far as the regularity of the proceedings to consolidate the several school districts is concerned the only attack made thereon by the defendants is that the plats posted by the superintendent of schools ("Exh. C," and "Exh. G,") hereto attached and made a part of this statement, do not comply with the statutory requirement.
These plats are supposed to be the same, with slight variations; the object of the introduction of both is not clearly shown.
The proposed consolidated district occupied portions of townships 53 and 54, portions of which were located in ranges 34 and 35. An examination of the exhibits referred to discloses that the superintendent made a complete map of townships 53 and 54; (that by clerical error he designated Township 53 as Township 54, but there is no point made on such error); that he then drew the heavy dark lines appearing on the plats indicating the boundaries of the proposed consolidated district within the two townships, except where creeks which are shown on the plat constituted the boundaries, and on the margin of the plat a pointer was placed directed towards the lands embraced within the boundaries as above detailed.
The evidence showed that the school directors of District No. 26 and their duly elected successors had continued to exercise the functions of office subsequent to the election and up to the time of the institution of this action, and were "lawfully in the offices they claimed, unless those offices were abolished by virtue of the consolidation of the district." On the part of relator it was shown that the directors of the consolidated school district employed a teacher, but the salary had not been paid because the county treasurer would not honor the warrants of the consolidated school district.
It aso showed that no consolidated school had in fact been conducted in the territory alleged to have been organized as said Consolidated School District Number 2, from the time of its organization to the time of the trial in the circuit court. Said exhibits are as follows:
[SEE Plat of Proposed Consolidated District No 2 IN ORIGINAL]
[SEE Plat of Proposed Consolidated District No 2 IN ORIGINAL]
In support of this proposition we are cited to Section 3, page 722, Laws 1913, and School District No. 1 v. School District No. 4, 94 Mo. 612, 618, 7 S.W. 285.
Said section in so far as is here material, relates to the calling of a special election to vote on the proposed consolidation and the plat to be posted therein, and reads as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial