State ex rel. Hartnett v. Powell

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: GRANGER
• Citation: 101 Iowa 382,70 N.W. 592
• Parties: STATE EX REL. HARTNETT v. POWELL ET AL.
• Decision Date: 07 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...