State ex rel. Douglas v. Sch. Dist. No. 108, Dakota Cnty.

• Decision Date: 17 January 1902
• Citation: 85 Minn. 230,88 N.W. 751
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DOUGLAS, Atty. Gen., v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 108, DAKOTA COUNTY, et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

85 Minn. 230

88 N.W. 751

STATE ex rel. DOUGLAS, Atty. Gen.,

v.SCHOOL DIST. NO. 108, DAKOTA COUNTY, et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 17, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Dakota county; F. M. Crosby, Judge.

Quo warranto by the state, on the relation of W. B. Douglas, attorney general, against school district No. 108, Dakota county, and others. Judgment for respondents and relator appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A quo warranto proceeding is a subject for the exercise of sound judicial discretion. It is proper for a court to consider the circumstances of the case, the position and motives of the relator in having the proceedings instituted, and the necessity and policy of allowing the remedy.

2. Where the right of a corporation to assert its corporate existence is questioned by a state because of some defect or irregularity in the proceedings for organization, the doctrine of waiver operating by way of estoppel in pais is applicable as against the state. Its conduct may have been such as to constitute a declaration that a forfeiture of corporate rights will not be insisted upon, and that the right to declare such forfeiture is waived.

3. This rule applied where, after its organization in form, and prior to the institution of quo warranto proceedings, a school district had borrowed money from the state, to be and which was actually used in the erection of a school building, and issued its bonds therefor to such state, and had voted a tax for current expenses. Wallace B. Douglas, Atty. Gen., C. W. Somerby, Asst. Atty. Gen., John D. O'Brien, and J. M. Millett, for appellant.

Wm. Hodgson and Stringer & Seymour, for respondents.

COLLINS, J.

This is a quo warranto proceeding to inquire into the organization of School district No. 108, in the county of Dakota. The district was organized, if at all, under Laws 1891, c. 26 (Gen. St. 1894, §§ 3667-3672, inclusive), in the year 1900; and a number of reasons are assigned by counsel for the relator why it has never had a legal existence, and should be so declared in this proceeding. The court below found the facts quite fully in respect to the details of the organization, and that in September, 1900, officers of said district were elected, were duly qualified, entered upon and continue to discharge their official duties. The court also found that after such election, and prior to the commencement of this proceeding, said district duly made an application for a loan of money from the state, under Gen. St. 1894, § 3769 et seq.,-the same to be used in the erection of a school building in the district,-and, further, that ‘such proceedings were had and taken by the proper officers of the state of Minnesota that prior to the commencement of this action said application was granted, and that said school district duly issued to the state of Minnesota its bonds in the sum of $600, which were accepted by the state of Minnesota, and the sum of $600 paid by it to said school district, which had been used in the construction of a school building in said school district,’ and that the district subsequently voted a tax for current expenses, which presumably has been levied and is in process of collection. Upon these findings the trial court ordered judgment for the respondents, and from the judgment the relator appealed.

Counsel for respondents take the position: (a) That the order based upon the conclusion and determination of the county commissioners to create said school district was final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed by a court by means of quo warranto; (b) that the state is estopped by its acts of commission and omission, as found below, from questioning the validity of the organization of said school district.

At the time the board of county commissioners acted upon the petition presented for the organization of this new district, it was provided in section 3669 that ‘the decision of the said board when so recorded shall be final’; and it is upon this language that the respondents' counsel rest their claim that the order of the board cannot be reviewed by a court under the writ of quo warranto, even if the board was without jurisdiction to act upon the petition because the statute had not been complied with in several essentials. We do not find it necessary to pass upon this contention, for we are clearly of the opinion that the state has fully recognized the existence...