State ex rel. City of Manitowoc v. Green

• Decision Date: 09 April 1907
• Citation: 131 Wis. 324,111 N.W. 519
• Parties: STATE EX REL. CITY OF MANITOWOC v. GREEN ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

131 Wis. 324

111 N.W. 519

STATE EX REL. CITY OF MANITOWOC

v.GREEN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 9, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Manitowoc County; E. B. Belden, Judge.

Mandamus by the state, on the relation of the city of Manitowoc, against Walter Green and others, composing the school board of a school district, to compel respondents to turn over to the city property belonging to the district. From a judgment of dismissal, the relator appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action of mandamus to compel the school board of Joint School District No. 1 of the city and town of Manitowoc to turn over to the city all property belonging to the district, or show cause to the contrary. The defendants having made return to the writ, and the relator having made answer to such return, and the issues so formed having been tried by the court, at the close of the trial the court found as matters of fact, in effect: (1) That the city is a municipal corporation of the third class, operating under a special charter, which up to July 7, 1905, contained no provisions in relation to schools or to any city school system of government, and that the public schools of the city prior to that date had been conducted and managed under the public school district system, as provided by the general statutes. (2) That all the territory within the city was divided into four separate school districts known as “School District No. 2” and “School District No. 7” of the city, and also “Joint School District No. 1” and “Joint School District No. 4” of the city and town of Manitowoc, each of said joint districts comprising within its limits certain territory of the town in addition to the territory of the city. (3) That at the time of issuing the writ each of said four districts was organized and represented by duly elected officers in the lawful possession of all the property of the district. (4) That May 22, 1905, an ordinance was introduced into the common council to amend the special charter of the city by adopting all the provisions of subchapter 14 of chapter 40a, St. 1898, being sections 925-113 to 925-119, and the same was laid over under the rules; that the same was then ordered to be considered at a regular meeting July 3, 1905, and notice thereof was directed in the meantime to be published in the official paper. (5) And the same was published in such paper June 10, 16, and 23, 1905. (4) That July 3, 1905, no quorum being present, the meeting adjourned to July 7, 1905, when a majority of the common council voted in favor of the adoption of such ordinance. (6) That July 28, 1905, a special election was held in each of said four school districts; that the notices of such elections were wholly insufficient in that they failed to state that a change of the school system would be considered at such meetings, and failed to sufficiently specify the business to be transacted, and which was attempted to be transacted at such meetings, and failed in two of said districts to definitely state the place where such meeting would be held; that in each of the two of said districts (including Joint School District No. 1, of which the defendants herein were officers) there were two schoolhouses at considerable distance apart, and the notices posted thereon for said meeting recited that such meeting would be held at the schoolhouse in said district, without specifying in which schoolhouse such meeting would be held; that the notice for such meeting July 28, 1905, in Joint School District No. 1, represented by the answering defendant, was directed to the qualified electors of Joint School District No. 1 of the city and town of Manitowoc “that a special meetingof said district will be held at the schoolhouse in said district” July 28, 1905, at 8 o'clock in the afternoon “to determine whether or not said school district wishes to ratify the adoption of the general charter law of the state of Wisconsin applicable to schools in accordance with the provisions of chapter 287, p. 502, of the laws of Wisconsin for the year 1899, which said general charter provisions have recently been duly adopted by the city council of the city of Manitowoc.” It also gave the form of the ballot. That the notice in each of the other districts was substantially the same, and was posted on the door of each of said schoolhouses. (7) That pursuant to such notice a meeting was held in Joint School District No. 1 July 28, 1905, at which a resolution was adopted confirming and ratifying such action of the common council, and at which meeting the whole number of votes cast was 376, including 118 women, of which number 197 votes were cast for the adoption and ratification of the general charter law relating to schools and 179 were cast against the adoption and ratification of the general charter law relating to schools, and that in each and all of the other districts a large number of women was present and voted on such resolutions. (8) That at and during the submission of such questions in each of said joint districts voters from the town and city indiscriminately were present and voted thereon. (9) That August 7, 1905, the mayor of the city assumed to appoint a board of education for the city, consisting of one commissioner from each of the seven wards, and in addition thereto three commissioners at large, and on August 12, 1905, the board of aldermen by its vote attempted to confirm the same, and at divers times thereafter the board so appointed qualified by taking the constitutional oath of office, elected officers, appointed committees, and assumed to act as such, but never at any time had possession of the school property of the city, nor any control of the schools therein, or any funds belonging to said schools, or their teachers, employés, or other officers, but that the administration of said schools and school property was at all times exercised by and under the control of the several district boards mentioned. (10) That at the annual meeting of Joint School District No. 1 held July 3, 1905, it was resolved to unite all the districts and joint districts into one joint district to be known as “District No. 1” of the city, with the view of establishing a city system of schools and establishing one high school for the city; that said meeting was adjourned to July 6, 1905, and that at such adjourned meeting a resolution was offered to the effect that such application ought to be granted, and the aldermen residing in the district were instructed accordingly, which resolution was referred to a committee with instructions to investigate and report at an adjourned meeting to be held July 17, 1905; that such adjourned meeting declared itself to be opposed to any scheme for the consolidation of the several school districts, and that the school board take all necessary legal steps toward establishing a central high school under the federal system, leaving the grades of the several districts to be maintained and operated as they were. (11) That October 2, 1905, the board of aldermen resolved to levy a special tax of 3 1/2 mills on the dollar, but the collection thereof was enjoined by the court (15) October 5, 1905. (12) That the new school board so appointed never exercised any duties or functions, or became possessed of any of such school property. (13) That the new board made demand upon the school district boards, and especially upon the defendants, for all property of the four districts to be delivered to the treasurer of the city for the use of the board. (14) That each of said four district boards continued its functions as before. (16) That all matters and allegations set forth in the return were true and sustained by the evidence.

And as conclusions of law the court found, in effect: (1 and 2) That the city charter had not been so changed or amended as to confer upon the city powers to govern and control the public schools therein, and that each of the four districts were lawfully engaged in managing the schools and school property therein. (3) That no sufficient notice of the time and place for adopting the proposed ordinance was given, and that the board of aldermen had no jurisdiction to act thereon, and that its action in adopting such general charter was null and void. (4, 5, and 6) That the electors of the four several districts could not ratify the action of the city; that the resolution passed and the action taken at the special elections held in the several school districts July 28, 1905, were null and void; that the notices for such special...