State ex rel. Bracken v. Heiser
| Decision Date | 31 May 1875 |
| Citation | 60 Mo. 540 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel., WILLIAM S. BRACKEN, ETC., Appellant, v. JOSEPH F. HEISER, ETC., Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Caldwell Circuit Court.
H. J. Chapman, for Appellant.
J. M. Hoskinson, for Respondent.
This was an information in the nature of a quo warranto, filed on the relation of William S. Bracken, who represents himself to be the President of the Board of Education for township 56, in range 28, in Caldwell County.
The petition states substantially, that in the year 1868, township fifty-six, in range twenty-eight, in Caldwell County, constituted one school district under the laws of this State; that in the month of October, 1868, the Board of Education of said district sub-divided said township or district into seven sub-districts, which said sub-districts were numbered from one to seven inclusive; that said sub-district numbered two, so created, included within its limits, the town of Kingston, with her corporate limits defined by law, as well as other territory adjoining thereto; that a plat defining the limits of the several sub-districts into which said township had been thus divided, had been duly filed, etc.; that local directors had been duly elected for each of said several sub-districts, and that a clerk had been elected for each of said several boards of directors; that in said sub-district numbered two, which includes the town of Kingston, William S. Bracken, (the relator,) John McNaughton and Nelson A. Smith were elected as local directors; and that said Wm. S. Bracken was elected clerk of said local board of directors; that the clerks of the several boards of directors of the said several sub-districts constituted the board of education for said township numbered fifty-six, and that they, as such board, in April, duly elected the said William S. Bracken (the relator,) president of said township board, etc.; and that he was duly qualified and installed into said office; and that said board of education so constituted were entitled to all the rights and privileges of boards of education as secured by the laws of this State.
The petition then charges, that on, or about the 17th day of January, 1873, an election was held in said town of Kingston, for the purpose of adopting the school incorporation law in relation to towns, cities and villages, as is shown in Wagn. Stat., pages 1262 and following; that at said election (said town of Kingston being situated in the territorial limits of said sub-district numbered two) all of the voters in said sub-district numbered two were permitted to vote for the adoption or rejection of said law, and a majority of votes so cast at said election were in favor of the adoption of said law; that by virtue of said election it is claimed by defendant that the whole of the territorial limits of said sub-district No. 2 became incorporated under said law, authorizing cities, towns, etc., to organize for school purposes into independent school districts; that an election was afterwards held for the purpose of electing directors to serve as a board of education of the said “Kingston School District” so created as aforesaid; at which election George Royer, Samuel Turner and others were elected and claimed to be, and constitute a “Board of Education of Kingston School District” and that the defendant, Joseph F. Heiser was elected president of said board; and that by virtue of these elections and proceedings, the defendant claims to be president of said board of directors, and that said assumed board of directors assume to act for and to control all of the school property belonging to said sub-district number two; and that they are usurping the powers and duties of school directors in and for the same.
The petition has many more and different allegations in reference to what is considered the illegal acts of the defendant, and said board of directors, charging that they are about to issue bonds for the purpose of the erection of a school house, and that said pretended board is threatening to levy taxes, etc., etc.
Injunctions are prayed for, and a judgment of ouster asked against defendants together with other things, which it would be a waste of time to mention; as the merits of the case depend on the portions of the petition hereinbefore substantially stated.
This petition was demurred to, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Buck v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
... ... Wilson, 45 Mo. 458; State ex rel. v. Searl, 50 ... Mo. 268; State ex rel. v. Board of Ed. Appleton ... City, 53 Mo. 127; State ex rel. v. Heiser, 60 ... Mo. 540; State ex rel. v. Board, 64 Mo. 53; ... State ex rel. v. Board of Education, 65 Mo. 587; ... State ex inf. v. Henderson, 145 Mo ... ...
-
Beavers v. State
...to the consent of the voters of such territory. State v. Bd. of Education, 53 Mo. 127; State v. Bd. of Education, 64 Mo. 53; State v. Heiser, 60 Mo. 540; v. Dulle, 74 Mo. 443. But it should be said in this connection that Missouri has a statute, passed before these decisions were rendered, ......
-
Henry v. Dulle
...to the organization under chapter 47, were attached to the city for school purposes, they were necessarily included in that organization. 60 Mo. 540; 64 Mo. 56. If so included, they will be presumed to have remained as originally organized. The notice, by its terms, shows that there was at ......
-
Nat'l Water Works Co. of New York v. Sch. Dist. of Kansas City
...this can be legally done. State v. Board Ed. Appleton City, 53 Mo. 127; State v. Miller, 65 Mo. 50; Henry v. Dulle, 74 Mo. 443; State v. Heiser, 60 Mo. 540. IV. The record in this case shows that the plaintiff took a non-suit before the case was submitted to the jury. As soon as the court a......