State ex rel. Acom v. Hamlet
| Decision Date | 14 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 43039,No. 2,43039,2 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ACOM et al. v. HAMLET et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert W. Hawkins, Caruthersville, Jones & Jones, Kennett, Langdon R. Jones, Robert H. Jones, Kennett, for appellants.
John M. Dalton and Harold B. Treasure, Kennett, for respondents.
WESTHUES, Commissioner.
Relators, appellants in this case, filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Pemiscot County, Missouri, wherein they asked the court to issue a writ of prohibition to enjoin the county superintendent of schools and four arbitrators from proceeding to consider a proposed change in the boundary of two school districts. The circuit court dismissed the petition and relators appealed to the Springfield Court of Appeals. That court reversed the judgment of the circuit court with one of the judges dissenting. The case was then transferred to this court.
The question presented in this case involves the interpretation of subdivision 1 of Section 165.170, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. It will be necessary to relate the history of events in the order in which they occurred. The two school districts involved are the Peach Orchard Common School District No. 55 and the Wardell Consolidated School District No. 3. Both districts are located in Pemiscot County, Missouri. In this opinion we shall refer to the districts as Peach Orchard and Wardell. The Peach Orchard District desired to annex a portion of the Wardell District and at an election held to determine the question, a majority of the voters voted in the affirmative. Wardell was against the plan and refused to call an election to determine the question.
On March 18, 1950, Peach Orchard instituted a mandamus proceeding to compel Wardell to hold an election on April 4, 1950, that being the date of the annual school meeting. Section 165.200, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Wardell applied for and was granted a change of venue. The case was transferred to Butler County. This caused a delay so that a notice of 15 days as required by statute could not be given before April 4. The Circuit Court of Butler County on May 22, 1950, issued a writ of mandamus requiring Wardell to hold an election within 20 days. Wardell did not comply but instead appealed to the Springfield Court of Appeals. The case was decided by the appellate court on February 20, 1951. See State ex rel. McCain v. Acom, 236 S.W.2d 749. The appeals court held that Wardell was legally bound to hold an election; that the election in the circumstances could be held on a day other than the day of the annual school meeting. The Court of Appeals in the concluding paragraph, 236 S.W.2d 753(4), made the following order:
'But we are satisfied that we should go further, and, while we approve the action of the change of venue court in this case in fixing a later date for the holding of the election, and feel that such trial court may still fix a later date for the holding of the election, applied for by realtors (relators), and, since the subsequent date fixed by the change of venue court has also passed the order of this court should be affirmance of the order and judgment of the change of venue court; but that the cause should be remanded to that court, with directions to it to fix another date for the holding of such election, with all of the necessary orders for notice, as required by Section 10410, R.S.Mo.1939, now Sec. 165.170, R.S.Mo.1949 [V.A.M.S.], together with the machinery for the holding of such election.'
The mandate of the court was sent to the circuit court on March 8, 1951. On March 19, 1951, the Circuit Court of Butler County, Missouri, in obedience to the mandate issued an order to the Board of Directors of Wardell to hold a meeting for the purpose of calling an election; to post notices at least 15 days before the day of election and to conduct the election as required by law. The Board of Directors of Wardell complied with that order. The election was held on April 17, fourteen days after the 1951 annual school-meeting date. The majority of the residents of Wardell voted against the change in boundary. The situation was then that Peach Orchard approved the change in boundary and Wardell disapproved. In such cases, Section 165.170, supra, provides as follows:
Peach Orchard appealed to the county superintendent and he in turn appointed four taxpayers of the county as a board of arbitration. Wardell thereupon filed the present suit to prohibit the board of arbitration from proceeding in the matter. The trial court held against Wardell and dismissed the petition. Wardell then appealed to the Springfield Court to Appeals. That court reversed the judgment of the circuit court on the theory that the statute, Section 165.170, supra, did not authorize an appeal to the superintendent because the election in the Wardell District was not held on the day of the regular annual school meeting. The statute authorizing an appeal reads, 'and upon such appeal being filed with him, in writing, within five days after the annual meeting, he shall appoint four disinterested men, * * *.' The Court of Appeals concluded as follows, State ex rel. Acom v. Hamlet, 244 S.W.2d 118, loc. cit. 120:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Sisson v. Felker
...R. Co. v. Fallon County, supra, 28 P.2d loc. cit. 464; Russell v. Wellington, supra, 31 N.E. loc. cit. 631.4 State ex rel. Acom v. Hamlet, 363 Mo. 239, 244, 250 S.W.2d 495, 498; State ex rel. Wagner v. Patterson, supra, 207 Mo. loc. cit. 148, 105 S.W. loc. cit. 1054; State ex rel. McCain v.......
-
State ex rel. Reorganized School Dist. R-2 of Newton County v. Robinson
...the law, substantial rather than technical compliance with statutory provisions and requirements will suffice. State ex rel. Acom v. Hamlet, 363 Mo. 239, 250 S.W.2d 495, 498(4); State ex rel. School Dist. No. 34, Lincoln County v. Begeman, supra, 2 S.W.2d loc.cit 111(3); School Dists. Nos. ......
-
State ex rel. Kugler v. Tillatson
...laws are administered by laymen. State ex rel. School District No. 34 v. Begeman, 221 Mo.App. 257, 2 S.W.2d 110; State ex rel. Acom v. Hamlet, 363 Mo. 239, 250 S.W.2d 495; Reorganized District R IV v. Williams, Mo.App., 289 S.W.2d 126; School District No. 16 v. New London School District, 1......
-
Meloy v. Reorganized School Dist. R-1 of Reynolds County
...rules are to Missouri Rules of Court, V.A.M.R.2 England v. Eckley, 330 S.W.2d 738, 744(6) (Mo. banc 1960); State ex rel. Acom v. Hamlet, 363 Mo. 239, 250 S.W.2d 495, 498(4) (1952); State ex rel. School Dist. of Affton v. Smith, 336 Mo. 703, 80 S.W.2d 858, 861(9) (banc 1935); State ex rel. F......