State ex rel. Gray v. Board of Educ. of City of Chetopa
| Decision Date | 24 January 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 38768,38768 |
| Citation | 173 Kan. 780,252 P.2d 859 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. GRAY, Labette County Atty., v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF CHETOPA et al. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. There are no vested rights in the existence of a school district. The legislature has all power not denied to it by the constitution. It may extend or limit school district boundaries, consolidate two or more districts as one, or abolish a district altogether.
2. The legislature has full power and authority to permit the electors of a school district to decide by an election whether the entire territory of such district shall be attached to another school district for school purposes.
3. Under the provision of section 41, chapter 395, Laws 1951, G.S.1951 Supp. 72-1627, the board of education of a city school actually is called upon to determine only whether in the exercise of its judgment and discretion it deems it proper and to the best interests of the schools of the city and the territory that the territory be attached, the right to prevent such attachment being left entirely with the electors thereof.
4. An act of the legislature is not stricken down on the ground it is unconstitutional unless infringement of the superior law is clear beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Section 41, chapter 395, Laws 1951, examined, considered and held: (a) It contravenes neither section 1 nor section 16, article 2, of the state constitution; and (b) it does not violate the due process clause of the federal constitution.
J. Logan Shuss, Sp. Asst. County Atty., Parsons, argued the cause, and Oren Gray, County Atty., and Earl Bohannon, Sp. Asst. County Atty., Parsons, were with him on the briefs for plaintiff.
Richard L. Becker, of Coffeyville, argued the cause, and Dan R. Aul, of Chetopa, and Morris D. Hildreth, of Coffeyville, were with him on the briefs for the defendants.
Paul Armstrong, of Columbus, was on the briefs amicus curiae.
This is an action in the nature of quo warranto to test the validity of chapter 395, Laws 1951, and particularly section 41 thereof, G.S.1951 Supp. 72-1627, pursuant to which defendant, the board of education of school District No. 4, city of Chetopa, Labette county, annexed certain territory for school purposes.
Three other school districts are joined as parties defendant. These districts are:
Joint common school district No. J-100, Labette and Cherokee counties, state of Kansas.
Common school district No. 5, Labette county, state of Kansas.
Common school district No. 3, Labette county, state of Kansas.
All officers of two of the three districts last named and two officers of one of such districts, all of whom were officers of their respective school district at the time of the annexation of their districts, although not joined by plaintiff as parties defendant, have entered the action as parties defendant.
The four school districts and the officers mentioned have joined in a motion to dismiss plaintiff's action on the ground the amended petition fails to state facts disclosing invalidity of the annexation. The motion is treated by the parties as a demurrer and will be so considered. For clarity of issues it probably should be stated at the outset plaintiff in nowise challlenges the regularity of any procedural steps in the annexation proceedings. Plaintiff's contention is chapter 395, Laws 1951, and particularly section 41 thereof, G.S.1951 Supp. 72-1627, is unconstitutional but, if valid, certain action undertaken in connection with the annexation is illegal.
The pertinent portion of the amended petition reads:
'1. That School District No. 4 is a regularly organized school district and comprises the City of Chetopa, Kansas, and adjacent territory lying and being within the County of Labette, State of Kansas.
'2. That Common School District No. J-100 is a regularly organized school district, its territory lying and being situated within the counties of Labette and Cherokee, State of Kansas.
'3. That Common School District No. 5 is a regularly organized school district, its territory lying and being within the county of Labette, State of Kansas.
'4. That Common School District No. 3 is a regularly organized school district, its territory lying and being within the County of Labette, State of Kansas.
'5. That said School District No. 4 and its said board of education have attempted and are illegally attempting to attach all of the territory constituting School Districts Nos. 3, 5 and J-100 and are assuming to exercise control over the territory comprising said districts, and will, unless restrained by this court, levy taxes upon all of the properties comprising each and all of said other school districts under and by virtue of Ch. 395 of the 1951 S.L. of the State of Kansas, for the payment of the existing bonded indebtedness of said School District No. 4, and the Board of Education of the City of Chetopa of the State of Kansas.
'6. Plaintiff further shows to the court that said Ch. 395, S.L., 1951, is unconstitutional, void and of no legal effect and that the acts, matters and things done by said defendants under said act will be and are in contravention of the constitutions of Kansas and the United States of America as hereinafter set forth.
'7. That said act attempts to confer legislative powers upon the defendant, School District No. 4 and its board of education in contravention and violation of the provisions of Sections 1 and 21, Article 2, of the constitution of the State of Kansas, in that said act of the legislature wholly fails to set up any standard or outline within which the legislature has authorized the board of education of the district, to which territory is to be attached as provided in Section 41, Ch. 395, S.L., 1951, said chapter being S. B. No. 5, to determine whether 'if it deems it proper and to the best interests of the schools of said city and territory, issue and enter upon its records an order attaching said territory to the city for school purposes, and such territory shall thereupon become and compose a part of the city for school purposes only, and the taxable property of such attached territory shall be subject to taxation by the board the same as other property within its jurisdiction, including levies for the payment of existing bonded indebtedness and interest thereon'.
'8. Said act is in contravention and violation of the provision of Section 16, Article 2 of the constitution of the State of Kansas, in that the title of said act does not refer to or indicate that the act attempts to give to boards of education of one school district authority to attach the territory of adjoining school districts. The act itself provides that 'Territory outside the city limits of any city, and adjacent thereto or adjacent to property attached to said city for school purposes may be attached to said city for school purposes as herein provided.'
'9. Section 41 of Ch. 395, 1951 S.L., violates the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States in that it does not provide for an impartial tribunal to determine the question of whether it is proper and to the best interest of the schools involved that they shall be attached to and become a part of said city for school purposes.
'10. Plaintiff further states to the court that the Labette County Community High School was originally organized in the year 1893 pursuant to Ch. 140, S.L. of Kansas, 1893, as and conducted as a County High School at Altamont, Labette County, Kansas, and continued to conduct said school until H.B. No. 522, Ch. 187, S.L., 1923, was adopted and became effective; that since that time said high school has been known and conducted under the name of Labette County Community High School and is now operating and offering a course of study prescribed for accredited high schools by the State Board of Education; that the territory of the said Labette County Community High School as prescribed by the laws of the State of Kansas 'shall include all territory in said county not included in the territory of other accredited high schools' (Ch. 187, S.L., 1923, Sec. 1) that the territory hereinafter mentioned and described as being Common School Districts Nos. 3 and 5 and that part of the territory hereinafter mentioned as being in Joint Common School District No. J-100, except that part thereof lying in Cherokee County, State of Kansas, has been from the time of the establishment of the Labette County Community High School and down to the present time a part of the territory of the Labette County Community High School and its predecessor, Labette County High School.
'11. Plaintiff further states to the court that even though the act in question be determined by this court to be valid, yet the proceedings taken to attach the territory of the several defending districts, and the actions of said board of education of the City of Chetopa are illegal and should be vacated and set aside for the following reasons, to-wit:
'a. That said act provides that 'where the territory of any school district is attached to any city for school purposes, the territory so attached shall not reduce the population of the existing common school district in the one-teacher school to less than ten (10) children of less than six (6) nor more than sixteen (16) years of age who have not completed the elementary course of study, or will reduce existing taxable, tangible valuation of such existing common school district to less than $250,000.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kan.
...State, ex rel., v. Urban Renewal Agency of Kansas City, 179 Kan. 435, Syl. p 1, 296 P.2d 656 (1956); State, ex rel., v. Board of Education, 173 Kan. 780, 790, 252 P.2d 859 (1953).] " 'Courts do not strike down legislative enactments on the mere ground they fail to conform with a strictly le......
-
State ex rel. Schneider v. Kennedy
...(1960); State ex rel. v. Urban Renewal Agency of Kansas City, 179 Kan. 435, Syl. P 1, 296 P.2d 656 (1956); State ex rel. v. Board of Education, 173 Kan. 780, 790, 252 P.2d 859 (1953). Courts do not strike down legislative enactments on the mere ground they fail to conform with a strictly le......
-
Water Dist. No. 1 of Johnson County v. Robb
...the proposition to issue bonds, and provided for the issuance of revenue bonds already voted. See, also, State ex rel. Gray v. Board of Education, 173 Kan. 780, 252 P.2d 859; City of Lawrence v. Robb, 175 Kan. 495, 265 P.2d 317; State ex rel. Fatzer v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 176 Kan. 68......
-
Board of County Com'rs of Riley County v. City of Junction City
...215 Kan. 700, 527 P.2d 1340 (1974); Williams v. Board of Education, 198 Kan. 115, 422 P.2d 874 (1967); and State ex rel. v. Board of Education, 173 Kan. 780, 252 P.2d 859 (1953). "Foreign authorities are in accord. In Deacon v. City of Euless, 405 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.1966), state legislation was......