State ex Inf. Richeson v. Cummins

• Decision Date: 19 June 1905
• Citation: 89 S.W. 74,114 Mo. App. 93
• Parties: STATE ex inf. RICHESON v. CUMMINS et al., School Directors.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

89 S.W. 74

114 Mo. App. 93

STATE ex inf. RICHESON v. CUMMINS et al., School Directors.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 19, 1905.

SCHOOL DISTRICT — DIVISION — ARBITRATION — DECISION — RECORD.

Rev. St. 1899, § 9742, with reference to the formation of new school districts, declares that, if the assent of the portions of district to be divided be not given, the matter may be referred to the county commissioner, and on appeal may be submitted to a board of arbitrators, which board is required to render a decision which shall conform to the proposition contained in the notice and voted on at the annual meeting, and the county commissioner is then required to transmit the decision to the various clerks of the districts interested and to the clerk of the district divided, who is required to enter the same on his records, etc. Held, that such section impliedly required the judgment of the board of arbitration to be reduced to writing, signed by its members, and filed; so that, where no formal decision was written or filed in favor of the division, no new district was thereby created.

Quo warranto by the state, on the information of Charles H. Richeson, against Willis Cummins and others, to oust respondents from their office as district school directors. Writ granted.

Edward T. Eversole, for informant. E. M. Dearing and W. E. Fisse, for respondents.

BLAND, P. J.

Prior to April, 1905, School District No. 3, township 38, range 3 east, in Washington county, Mo., was composed of the following territory: Fractional sections 10, 11, and 12, and section 13, and fractional sections 14 and 15, and section 16, all in township 38, range 3 east. At the annual April school election in 1905, held by the voters in said district, a proposition to divide said district and create a new one, to be known as "District No. 4, Township 38, Range 3 East," out of the following territory: Fractional sections 1, 2, 12, 14, and 16, and all of section 13, in said township 38, range 3 East — was voted upon. Forty-two votes were cast in favor of the proposition, and 56 votes against it. The majority of the votes cast at the election being against the proposition, an appeal was taken to the county school commissioner, John W. Houston, who, in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided, selected Richard Adams, Burwell Fox, G. G. Patton, and Andrew McClure as arbitrators, to form, with himself, a board of arbitration to hear and determine said appeal. The board met in due time. The parties in interest appeared before it, and it is alleged in the return to the writ of quo warranto that the arbitrators heard the appeal and decided the same in favor of the proposed division, and notified the clerk of the district of their action. Thereafter, and within the time prescribed by the statute, the respondents were duly selected as directors of the new district and entered upon the discharge of their duties as such. The prosecuting attorney of Washington county sued out of this court a writ of quo warranto to oust the respondents from their office.

The petition for the writ attacks the legality and sufficiency of the organization or incorporation of the new district on several grounds. We deem it unnecessary to notice more than one of such grounds. It is alleged that the board of arbitrators failed to make any award. If the board did make an award, it failed to reduce it to writing and sign it, and the...