State ex rel. Consld. School Dist. v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 17 July 1930
• Citation: 30 S.W.2d 603
• Parties: THE STATE EX REL. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 OF NEW MADRID COUNTY v. L.D. THOMPSON, State Auditor.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

30 S.W.2d 603

THE STATE EX REL. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 OF NEW MADRID COUNTY v. L.D. THOMPSON, State Auditor.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Court en Banc.

July 17, 1930.

Mandamus.

ALTERNATIVE WRIT MADE PEREMPTORY.

Sharp & Baynes and M.E. Montgomery for relator.

(1) The Legislature by the provisions of Section 11259 invested the County Superintendent of Schools with the judicial discretion to determine the boundaries of the proposed consolidated school district without regard to boundaries of existing School Districts, subject only to the limitations specified in Sections 11258 and 11261. State ex rel. Kenneppe v. Scott, 264 S.W. 369; State ex rel. v. Lee, 284 S.W. 129; State ex rel. v. Ross, 286 S.W. 726; State ex rel. v. Stephens, 243 S.W. 89; State ex rel. v. School Dist., 234 S.W. 54; State ex inf. v. Schuster, 285 Mo. 409; State ex rel. v. Glaves, 268 Mo. 100; State ex rel. v. Wright, 270 Mo. 387; State ex inf. v. Jones, 266 Mo. 191. And the act of the superintendent in fixing the boundaries is subject only to the approval or disapproval of the voters at the election held to vote upon said proposition and when approved by the voters is final and not subject to review by the courts. State ex inf. v. Scott, 264 S.W. 369; State ex rel. v. Stephens, 243 S.W. 89; State ex rel. v. School Dist., 234 S.W. 54; State ex inf. v. Schuster, 227 S.W. 60; State ex rel. v. Wright, 270 Mo. 387; State ex rel. v. Glaves, 268 Mo. 105; State ex inf. v. Jones, 266 Mo. 197. (2) The Legislature has enjoined upon the County Superintendent the duty of laying the boundaries where in his judgment will best serve the needs of the community, having due regard for the welfare of the adjoining districts, and a community has been defined by the courts as "a sort of synonym of neighborhood or vicinity, or may be said to mean the people who reside in a locality in more or less proximity." State ex inf. v. Scott, 264 S.W. 371. (3) The County Superintendent is presumed to have acted properly and in accordance with the law and to have laid the boundaries where in his judgment would best suit the needs of the community. State ex rel. Hanna v. Ross, 286 S.W. 728. (4) All doubt as to the legality of the formation of a consolidated district will be resolved in favor of the district. State ex inf. v. Schuster, 227 S.W. 60. (5) The act will be liberally construed to accomplish the will of the voters. State ex inf. v. Foxworthy, 256 S.W. 466.

Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, and Don Purteet, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent; W.C. Sanders of counsel.

(1) When the bond involved in this proceeding was presented to the State Auditor for registration, it became and was his duty to determine whether or not all of the conditions of the law had been complied with in the issuance of the bond. Sec. 1063, R.S. 1919. (2) In determining whether all the conditions of the law had been complied with in the issuance of the bond, it became and was the duty of the State Auditor to determine whether or not the bond was being issued by a duly and legally organized and existing school district. State ex rel. Buckley v. Thompson, 19 S.W. (2d) 714. (3) The Legislature has provided no means whereby a town school district may be converted into a consolidated school district, unless it is, in fact, consolidated with adjoining territory. Laws 1913, p. 71; Sec. 11257 et seq., R.S. 1919. The legislative intent in providing for the organization of consolidated school districts was to foster and encourage the formation of larger school units through the consolidation of districts and parts of districts, and to make the resultant benefits available to a larger number of children of school age. To such consolidated districts, the Legislature provided that special financial aid should be given by the State — aid not given to other school districts. Secs. 11263, 11264, R.S. 1919, as amended Laws 1925, p. 331; Sec. 11265, R.S. 1919, as amended Laws 1921 (1st Ex. Sess.) p. 184. (4) The Legislature has clothed the county superintendent of schools with power to lay out boundaries of proposed consolidated school districts, but the exercise of his discretion, in cases of abuse thereof, will be reviewed by the courts. State ex rel. West ex inf. Thudium v. Consolidated School District, 234 S.W. 56. (5) The laying out of the boundaries of the proposed consolidated school district in such a manner as to include the whole of the town school district of New Madrid and a fragment of only 20 uninhabited acres from each of three other adjoining school districts, was a plain and arbitrary abuse of the discretion vested in the County Superintendent by the statute. (6) The inclusion by the County Superintendent of the three widely separated, uninhabited twenty-acre tracts was a mere gesture at consolidation. The net result was the attempted conversion of the town school district into a consolidated school district, contrary to the intent and provisions of the statute, and to work a legal fraud upon the State in securing the special financial aid provided by the State for consolidated school districts, but not so provided for town school districts.

FRANK, J.

Mandamus to compel respondent as State Auditor to register bond No. 1 of a $32,000 issue of bonds authorized by Consolidated School District No. 9 of New Madrid County, Missouri, for the purpose of building a schoolhouse in said district.

The issuance and service of the writ was waived and relator's petition was taken as and for the writ. Respondent made return thereto and relator filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The legality of the organization of the consolidated district is the only question presented in this case. Respondent concedes that if the district was legally organized the bonds should be registered. In State ex rel. Buckley et al., School Directors, v. Thompson, 323 Mo. 248, 19 S.W. (2d) 714, we held that in a mandamus proceeding to compel the State Auditor to register bonds of a consolidated school district, he could question the legality of the organization of the district. We refer the reader to that case for our reasons for so holding.

The consolidated district in question was organized under Sections 11257, 11258 and 11259, Revised Statutes 1919, as amended by subsequent acts of the General Assembly. The territory included within the consolidated district, and from which it was formed, is the Town School District of New Madrid and sixty acres of uninhabited territory, composed of three separate twenty-acre tracts detached from three separate common school districts adjoining said town district.

Respondent contends that the intent and purpose of the Legislature in providing for consolidated school districts was to make possible larger and better schools by the combination of territory and resources, and thus provide better schools for a greater number of school children. Based on this contention, the claim is that the county superintendent in designating the boundaries of the consolidated district by adding to the Town District of New Madrid three widely separated and uninhabited twenty-acre tracts of land did not comply with the provisions of Section 11259, Revised Statutes 1919, but arbitrarily and capriciously abused the discretion vested in him by said statute, and by so doing thwarted the purpose and intent of the Legislature in enacting the statute. The pleadings present this sole issue. It is admitted that all other terms and conditions of the statute were...