State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Whittle, 33164.

• Decision Date: 23 August 1933
• Docket Number: No. 33164.,33164.
• Citation: 63 S.W.2d 100
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI on Information of ROY McKITTRICK, Attorney-General, Relator, v. OTTO WHITTLE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

63 S.W.2d 100 STATE OF MISSOURI on Information of ROY McKITTRICK, Attorney-General, Relator,
v.
OTTO WHITTLE. No. 33164. Supreme Court of Missouri. Court en Banc, August 23, 1933.

[63 S.W.2d 101]

Quo Warranto.

OUSTER WAS ORDERED.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney-General, and Gilbert Lamb, Assistant Attorney-General, for relator.

(1) A common school district in Missouri is a political subdivision of the State. Arts. II, III, Ch. 57, R.S. 1929: State ex rel. Carthage v. Hackmann, 287 Mo. 190: State ex rel. v. Bd. of Curators, 268 Mo. 608; Wilson v. Drainage Dist., 237 Mo. 46; Morrison v. Morey, 146 Mo. 561: Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 97 Pac. 216: Sorenson v. Superior Court, 254 Pac. 230: Fairless v. Water Imp. Dist., 25 S.W. (2d) 651; Lydecker v. Englewood Tp. Drainage & Water Comrs., 41 N.J.L. (12 Vroom) 157. (2) A school director in a common school district in Missouri is a public officer. State ex rel. Zevely v. Hackmann, 300 Mo. 67; Hasting v. Jasper County, 314 Mo. 149. (3) The voting for the employment of a teacher by a director of a common school district, who are related within the prohibited degree, when such voting results in the employment of the teacher, violates the nepotic law. Sec. 13, Art. XIV, Const. of Mo.; Brown v. O'Connel, 36 Conn. 447; State ex rel. Cook v. Doss, 134 S.E. 751; State ex inf. Norman v. Ellis, 325 Mo. 154.

R.P. Stone for respondent.

(1) Applicable Rules of Construction. (a) In interpreting the language of the Constitution, the words actually used must be presumed to have been employed in their natural and ordinary meaning. State ex rel. v. Board of Curators, 268 Mo. 608. (b) However, where the language of a section of the Constitution is ambiguous, leads to an absurd result, or is inconsistent with other sections of the same instrument (when the language thereof is construed in its ordinary and customary meaning), resort may be had to the history of the times when said section of the Constitution was passed, the circumstances and conditions of the people at the time, as well as the history of the instrument itself, and Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 3; State ex rel. Heimberger v. Board of Curators, 188 S.W. 128, 268 Mo. 598; State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 240 S.W. 135, 293 Mo. 313. (c) Resort may be had to the actual and practical construction placed on the section of the Constitution under consideration by the officers affected, and such actual and practical construction by such officers is pursuasive to the court. State ex rel. Koeln v. St. Louis Y.M.C.A., 168 S.W. 589, 259 Mo. 233; In re Publication of Docket of Supreme Court, 232 S.W. 454; State ex rel. Natl. Life Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 241 S.W. 396, 292 Mo. 342; Williams v. Williams, 30 S.W. (2d) 69, 235 Mo. 963; Automobile Gasoline Co. v. St. Louis, 32 S.W. (2d) 281, 326 Mo. 435; Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 3; State ex rel. v. Thompson, 5 S.W. (2d) 57, 319 Mo. 492: State ex rel. Russell v. State Highway Commission, 42 S.W. (2d) 196, 328 Mo. 942. (2) A school district is not a "political subdivision" of the State within the meaning of the term as it is used in Sec. 13 of Art. XIV of the Constitution. Sec. 13 of Art. XIV. Const. of Mo.; Kansas City v. Neal, 122 Mo. 234; State ex rel. v. Ingram, 298 S.W. 37, 317 Mo. 1141: School District v. Boyle, 81 S.W. 409, 182 Mo. 347. (3) Even though a school district is a "political subdivision" of the State, a school director of a common school district does not have "the right to name or appoint any person to render service" to such school district. Secs. 9209, 9271, 9283, 9284, 9287, 9289, R.S. 1929; State v. Lawrence, 178 Mo. 374; Pugh v. School District No. 5, 114 Mo. App. 690; People v. Ry. Co., 306 Ill. 402, 138 N.E. 129; City of Centralia v. McKee, 267 Ill. App. 585. (4) Even if extrinsic evidence relative to the proper construction of Sec. 13 of Art. XIV of the Constitution is considered, such evidence shows conclusively that the framers of such section of the Constitution did not intend for said section to apply to members of boards, bureaus and commissions merely...