State Ex Inf. McDowell v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 11 February 1924
• Docket Number: 24793
• Citation: 260 S.W. 84
• Parties: STATE ex inf. McDOWELL, Pros. Atty., ex rel. BARNHILL et al. v. THOMPSON et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

260 S.W. 84

STATE ex inf. McDOWELL, Pros. Atty., ex rel. BARNHILL et al.

v.

THOMPSON et al

No. 24793

Supreme Court of Missouri

February 11, 1924

Motion for Rehearing Overruled March 22, 1924.

J. M Haw and L. S. Cain, both of Charleston, for appellants.

James A. Boone and T. J. Brown, both of Charleston, for respondents.

In Banc. All concur; DAVID E. BLAIR, J., in result.

OPINION

Statement.

WOODSON C. J.

This is a suit instituted in the circuit court of Mississippi county by quo warranto to declare void consolidated school district No. 3 and to oust the respondents from the offices as directors of said school district. Upon the facts the court rendered judgment against the appellants and in favor of the respondents, and appellants duly appealed to this court.

The facts are as follows, as shown by the return (upon the return having been filed the plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings):

On June 21, 1922, 88 qualified voters of a community embraced in school districts Nos. 21, 22, and 47, in Mississippi county, Mo., filed a petition with the county superintendent of schools for a consolidated school district, under section 11259 of the Revised Statutes 1919, and as amended in 1921 (Laws 1921 p. 654). The petition asked for the consolidation or formation of a district embracing the entire territory of these three districts. The county superintendent visited the community, and, being also for many years familiar with the locality and schools, and knowing the needs of the community, determined the exact boundaries of the district as required by that section of the law and located the boundary lines co-extensive with the three above-named districts. She called a meeting of the qualified voters of the district to be held at 2 o'clock p. m. on July the 15th, 1922, by posting 10 notices in public places, stating the time, place, and purpose of the meeting. She also made plats of the district and caused 5 copies of the same to be posted in public places. These notices and plats were posted in every school district and in conspicuous places, and were so posted 15 days before the date of the meeting. She also filed a copy of the plat, notice, and petition with the county clerk, but the copy of the notice so filed was blank as to date, and a petition, by clerical error, said district 27 instead of 47. The county superintendent attended the meeting which was duly held on July 15, 1922, and exhibited the petition, notices, and plats. The meeting was opened at 2 p. m. and held 3 or 4 hours. Every one was given an opportunity to speak and vote. The vote was taken on the proposition to consolidate, and resulted in 107 for and 87 against it. There is no contention that the meeting was unfair in any particular, or that the above is not the correct vote. It is unquestioned that district 21 has 28 children enumerated, district 22 has 54, and district 47 has 154 children. Respondents were elected as directors of the new consolidated district, which was declared to be No. 3 Mississippi county, Mo. This is a quo warranto proceeding to oust them. A jury was waived, and the cause submitted to the court at the February term, 1923. The court found the issues for the respondents, and entered judgment accordingly.

Opinion.

I. The first assignment of error presented by counsel for appellants is that ...