State ex rel. Hartnett v. Powell

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtGRANGER
Citation101 Iowa 382,70 N.W. 592
PartiesSTATE EX REL. HARTNETT v. POWELL ET AL.
Decision Date07 April 1897

101 Iowa 382
70 N.W. 592

STATE EX REL. HARTNETT
v.
POWELL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 7, 1897.


Appeal from district court, Monroe county; F. Eichelberger, Judge.

The defendants are acting officers of independent school district No. 1, Bluff Creek township, Monroe county, Iowa; Powell being treasurer, A. L. Anderson secretary, and the other defendants directors. This action is to test their official rights in respect thereto, except as to William Anderson.

The district court made the following findings of fact as to the directors: “That the plaintiff is a resident of independent school district No. 1, Bluff Creek township, Monroe county, Iowa, and for several years prior to the 17th day of September, 1894, he had been such resident, holding and exercising the office and official duties of secretary of said school district; that on the second Monday of March, 1893, one Robert Yohe, one of the defendants herein, was elected a director of said district, and was holding said office at the time of this trial under and by virtue of said election; that on the second Monday of March, 1894, defendant James Neal was elected a director of said district, and at the time of the trial of this suit he was still holding the office of director of said district, under and by virtue of said election; that at the time of the bringing of this suit, and since the third Monday of March, 1894, and to the time of this trial, said two directors constituted a majority of the school board of said district; that each of them, on the Monday after their election, qualified and took the oath of office before the relator, as secretary of said district; that they took no other oath nor qualified in any other manner until the 17th day of September, 1894, when they were qualified before an officer authorized to administer the oath of office; that said directors now hold said office under and by virtue of said election and the qualification of September 17, 1894, and in no other manner; that this action is brought to oust them from said offices, because they did not qualify before some officer authorized to administer oaths on the Monday after their election as aforesaid.” Under the foregoing facts, the district found for the defendant directors. It also found for the other defendants, and the facts as found will be stated in the opinion, in connection with their consideration. From a judgment denying the prayer of the petition, the relator appealed. Affirmed.

[70 N.W. 593]

D. M. Anderson, for relator.

W. A. Nichol, for respondents.


GRANGER, J.

1. We first notice the action as to the directors, under the facts as presented, which are not questioned. The law provides for the election of directors in independent districts on the second Monday in March of each year. In districts like the one in question, the board of directors consists of three, each holding for a term of three years, so arranged that one is elected each year. The judges of election are to issue certificates of election to the persons elected for the ensuing term. Code, § 1808. The law nowhere makes express provisions for the qualification of such directors. If they are to qualify, the law requiring it, and the time for it, must be found in the law as to district townships. Section 1806, being one of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Iowa Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Envtl. Prot. Comm'n & Iowa Dep't of Natural Res., No. 12–0827.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 11, 2014
    ...district who performed three years of board functions before being sworn in as required by statute); State ex rel. Hartnett v. Powell, 101 Iowa 382, 385–86, 70 N.W. 592, 593 (1897) (applying the doctrine to school board directors who took a required oath from a person not legally authorized......
  • State v. Olson, No. 49158
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 12, 1957
    ...may not be questioned on this ground in this collateral proceeding. State v. Bates, 23 Iowa 96, 98-99; State ex rel. Hartnett v. Powell, 101 Iowa 382, 386, 70 N.W. 592; Bremer County v. Schroeder, 200 Iowa 1285, 1287, [249 Iowa 545] 206 N.W. 303; State v. Central States Electric Co., 238 Io......
  • Fellows v. Eastman
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • March 31, 1927
    ...23 S. Ct. 579, 47 L. Ed. 709; Com. v. Athearn, 3 Mass. 285; State v. Porter, 58 Iowa, 19, 11 N. W. 715; State v. Powell, 101 Iowa, 382, 70 N. W. 592; Holmes v. Sikes, 113 Ga. 582, 38 S. E. 978; Churchill v. Walker, 68 Ga. 681; Morris v. Underwood, 19 Ga. 560: State v. Ward, 17 Ohio St. 543;......
  • Cowles v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Rome, No. 38148.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 15, 1927
    ...to act cannot be questioned in collateral proceedings. Stickney v. Stickney, 77 Iowa, 699, 42 N. W. 518;State v. Powell, 101 Iowa, 382, 70 N. W. 592;Metropolitan National Bank v. Bank, 104 Iowa, 682, 74 N. W. 26, and cases there cited.” Bremer County v. Schroeder, 200 Iowa, 1285, 206 N. W. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Iowa Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Envtl. Prot. Comm'n & Iowa Dep't of Natural Res., No. 12–0827.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 11, 2014
    ...district who performed three years of board functions before being sworn in as required by statute); State ex rel. Hartnett v. Powell, 101 Iowa 382, 385–86, 70 N.W. 592, 593 (1897) (applying the doctrine to school board directors who took a required oath from a person not legally authorized......
  • State v. Olson, No. 49158
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 12, 1957
    ...may not be questioned on this ground in this collateral proceeding. State v. Bates, 23 Iowa 96, 98-99; State ex rel. Hartnett v. Powell, 101 Iowa 382, 386, 70 N.W. 592; Bremer County v. Schroeder, 200 Iowa 1285, 1287, [249 Iowa 545] 206 N.W. 303; State v. Central States Electric Co., 238 Io......
  • Fellows v. Eastman
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • March 31, 1927
    ...23 S. Ct. 579, 47 L. Ed. 709; Com. v. Athearn, 3 Mass. 285; State v. Porter, 58 Iowa, 19, 11 N. W. 715; State v. Powell, 101 Iowa, 382, 70 N. W. 592; Holmes v. Sikes, 113 Ga. 582, 38 S. E. 978; Churchill v. Walker, 68 Ga. 681; Morris v. Underwood, 19 Ga. 560: State v. Ward, 17 Ohio St. 543;......
  • Cowles v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Rome, No. 38148.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 15, 1927
    ...to act cannot be questioned in collateral proceedings. Stickney v. Stickney, 77 Iowa, 699, 42 N. W. 518;State v. Powell, 101 Iowa, 382, 70 N. W. 592;Metropolitan National Bank v. Bank, 104 Iowa, 682, 74 N. W. 26, and cases there cited.” Bremer County v. Schroeder, 200 Iowa, 1285, 206 N. W. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT