State ex rel. Burnett v. School Dist. of City of Jefferson

• Decision Date: 31 July 1934
• Docket Number: 33454
• Citation: 74 S.W.2d 30,335 Mo. 803
• Parties: State of Missouri at the relation of Mildred Burnett, by Earnest D. Burnett and Blanche O. Burnett, her natural guardians and parents, Relator, v. School District of the City of Jefferson, a Municipal Corporation, Mrs. W. C. Irwin, Oliver Bassman, Stanley P. Howard, Emil Schott, Irene Slate and Samuel Bushman, Members of the Board of Education of said School District, and W. F. Knox, Superintendent of Schools of said District
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

74 S.W.2d 30

335 Mo. 803

State of Missouri at the relation of Mildred Burnett, by Earnest D. Burnett and Blanche O. Burnett, her natural guardians and parents, Relator, v. School District of the City of Jefferson, a Municipal Corporation, Mrs. W. C. Irwin, Oliver Bassman, Stanley P. Howard, Emil Schott, Irene Slate and Samuel Bushman, Members of the Board of Education of said School District, and W. F. Knox, Superintendent of Schools of said District

No. 33454

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 31, 1934

Alternative writ quashed.

Baker & Baker for relator.

(1) Respondents' contentions, when analyzed, are that as stated on page 26 of their brief, to-wit: "The present contention arose from the fact that the State was able to pay only $ 12.50 of the amount it stated it would pay." The question of nonresident pupils attending respondents' school is secondary. The school district being interested only in the amount of money it receives by virtue of such pupils' attendance. Quoting further from page 26 "The Jefferson City School Board desired to continue to extend the privilege of high school attendance to nonresident students and therefore prescribed the rate of tuition for this year which included a $ 3 per month incidental fee from each nonresident student." Respondents' attitude toward nonresident pupils is that it is a privilege which respondent district affords to such nonresident students. Such a privilege to be afforded only to those who are able to pay the $ 3 per month incidental fee, and if a nonresident student should be so unfortunate as to not be financially able to pay this incidental fee, then such student could not enjoy or pursue a higher education. In our humble judgment Section 16 was passed by the Legislature to insure equal high school educational opportunities to rich and poor alike, no matter if one happened to reside in a district that did not have (or afford) a high school, and placed upon high schools receiving aid the condition that they must admit nonresident pupils. Section 9207 gives the board the "power to make all needful rules and regulations for the organization grading and government in their school district . . . and may admit pupils not residents within the district, and prescribe the tuition fee to be paid by the same:" Thus, the board's duties are many fold, and the Legislature by Section 16 took from the board that duty relative to the admittance of nonresidents and the charging of tuition fee. So, now, under the present law this discretion has been divested from such board and this only as to the governing of the school as far as nonresidents are concerned. Section 16 also provides this: "In case of any disagreement between districts as to the amount of tuition to be paid, the facts shall be submitted to the State Superintendent of Schools and his decision in the matter shall be final:" (2) As previously stated by relator, supra, and in her brief, there are nine aids that a high school may receive from the State (Secs. 13, 16, 19, Laws 1931, pp. 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 346). The obtaining of these aids depends upon the high school asking for same and having the necessary qualifications to receive them. The State has placed certain requirements upon high schools receiving these aids, namely (Sec. 13): "The board of directors . . . is hereby empowered and required to maintain the public school or schools of such district for a period of at least eight months in each school year."

H. P. Lauf for respondents.

(1) Repeal of statutes by implication are not favored by the courts. State ex rel. Wells v. Walker, 34 S.W.2d 129; White v. Greenway, 263 S.W. 105; Manker v. Faukhaber, 94 Mo. 439. (2) Two statutes should be construed so that each should stand and be given effect, if possible, and later statute should be construed to repeal former only in so far as the two acts may be found to be in conflict. State v. Taylor, 18 S.W.2d 476; 59 C. J., 916, sec. 517; State v. Wells, 210 Mo. 620. (3) Section 16, Laws 1931, page 343, as amended in 1933, is not in conflict with Section 9207, which section gives the board of education of schools receiving state support, the power to charge an incidental fee against nonresident pupils and said section was not repealed expressly or impliedly by the new school law. Sec. 9207, R. S. 1929; Sec. 16, Laws 1931, p. 343, as amended, Laws 1933; Sec. 21, Laws 1931, p. 346; Sec. 13, Laws of 1931, p. 340. (4) It is the duty of the courts in construing two or more statutes relating to the same subject, to read them together, and to harmonize them, if possible, and give force and effect to them. Little River Drainage Dist. v. Lassater, 29 S.W.2d 718. (5) Any interpretation of a statute purporting to make a school district responsible for education of nonresident pupils violates Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and Article II, Section 30 of the Constitution of Missouri, in that it takes the property of the taxpayers of said district and of the school district without due process of law. Const. of U.S., 14th Amendment; Const. of Mo., Art. II, Sec. 30; 12 C. J., sec. 1019, p. 1241, sec. 1034, p. 1250; 56 C. J., sec. 1008, p. 820; Railroad v. Van Horn, 57 N.Y. 477; Platte City Special Road District v. Couch, 320 Mo. 496; Camp v. Rogers, 44 Conn. 296; Hampshire v. Franklin, 16 Mass. 83; Levy v. Dunn, 160 N.Y.S. 504. (6) If relator's contention is correct, then said law is unconstitutional by reason of Article X, Section 3, Constitution of Missouri. Const. of Mo., Sec. 3, Art. X; State ex rel. Carth v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287. (7) The title to the new law of 1931, contains more than one subject and contains subjects not clearly expressed if the act is construed to place limitations on the powers of the boards of education in addition to the other subjects mentioned therein, it violates Article IV, Section 28, of the Constitution of Missouri. Laws 1931, p. 334; Art. IV, Sec. 28, Const. of Mo.; State v. Bergdoerfer, 107 Mo. 30; Williams v. Railroad, 233 Mo. 676; St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 616; State ex rel. Kansas City School Dist. v. Lee, 66 S.W.2d 521. (8) A court, if possible, will place on a statute a construction which will not result in injustice, oppression, hardship or inconvenience, unreasonableness, prejudice to public interest or conclusions not contemplated by the Legislature. Const. of Mo., Art. X, Secs. 11, 12; Strickler v. Consolidated School District, 316 Mo. 621; Board of Commissioners v. Peters, 161 S.W. 1159; Brooks v. Schultz, 178 Mo. 222; Strother v. Kansas City, 223 S.W. 421. (9) The court will take judicial knowledge of existing conditions. 23 C. J., secs. 1807, 1810; State v. Becker, 233 S.W. 646.

Edmund Burke and Roy D. Williams for Moberly School District.

(1) The powers of school boards as set out in Section 9207, Revised Statutes 1929, are not disturbed by Section 16 of the Act of 1931 (Laws 1931, pp. 343, 344). (2) Said Section 16 in no way affects the right of any school district to receive its share of state school moneys in the form of either an equalization quota or teacher and attendance quotas in accordance with Section 13 of the Act of 1931 (Laws 1931, pp. 340-342). (3) In enacting said Section 16 the General Assembly did not seek to compel high school districts to accept nonresident pupils. (4) Tuition payments made by the State to a high school district in accordance with said Section 16 cannot be classed as state aid to the high school district. (5) Section 16 of the Act of 1931 and Section 9207, Revised Statutes 1929, can be construed together. (6) Statutes are to receive a broad construction to aid the intendments of the Legislature. State ex rel. Bernero v. McQuillan, 142 S.W. 347; St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry., 174 S.W. 73. (7) In construing a statute the intent of the Legislature will be followed rather than the letter. Rutter v. Carothers, 122 S.W. 1056. (8) In construing the law the court will consider the former law, and construe the law so as to further the law and retard the evil. Dicker v. Deiner, 129 S.W. 936. (9) The board of education has the right to make rules. Wright v. Board of Education, 246 S.W. 44.

Roy D. Williams for Charles A. Lee, State Superintendent of Schools.

(1) In complying with the constitutional mandate to "establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this State between the ages of six and twenty years," the General Assembly has provided for the organization of school districts as territorial units wherein schools may be maintained by the qualified voters thereof for the persons of school age resident therein. Secs 9273, 9275, 9325, 9345, 9346, 9347, R. S. 1929; Secs. 1-10, pp. 335-339, Laws 1931. (2) As the agency charged directly with the responsibility of establishing and maintaining a school or schools within each school district, the General Assembly has provided for the election of a school board by the qualified voters of such district. Secs. 9287, 9327, R. S. 1929. (3) In accordance with the constitutional provision with respect thereto (Const. of Mo., Art. X, Sec. 11), the General Assembly has given to the school board and to the qualified voters of each school district the power to levy taxes for the support of public schools therein. Secs. 9552, 9225, 9261, 9534, R. S. 1929. (4) The General Assembly has given to the school board of each and every school district the power to "admit pupils not residents within the district, and to prescribe the tuition fee to be paid by the same." Sec. 9207, R. S. 1929. (5) The General Assembly has specified the minimum term for which the public school or schools of each and every district shall be maintained each year. Sec. 9195, R. S. 1929; Sec. 13, p. 340, Laws 1931. (6) In accordance with...