State ex rel. Howson v. Consolidated School Dist. of Elvira, Clinton County, 48450

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtHAYS
Citation245 Iowa 1244,65 N.W.2d 168
PartiesSTATE ex rel. HOWSON et al. v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. OF ELVIRA, CLINTON COUNTY.
Docket NumberNo. 48450,48450
Decision Date15 June 1954

Page 168

65 N.W.2d 168
245 Iowa 1244
STATE ex rel. HOWSON et al.
v.
CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. OF ELVIRA, CLINTON COUNTY.
No. 48450.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
June 15, 1954.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1954.

Page 170

W. R. Mockridge, DeWitt, E. C. Halbach, Alan H. Mayer, Clinton, for appellants.

John T. McCarthy, Clinton, for appellee.

HAYS, Justice.

In February 1953 a petition was filed in the office of the Clinton County Superintendent of Schools asking that the boundaries of the existing Consolidated School District of Elvira be extended as proposed therein. On June 19, 1953, the voters in proposed new district voted 138 yes to 22 no, to adopt the said extension. This action in quo warranto was [245 Iowa 1246] commenced on July 21, 1953, wherein the legality of said proceedings was questioned. Pending in said county district court at the time of trial were three other cases involving the same general issues. Cases No. 12889 and 12892 were in certiorari, having been commended just prior to the election. Case No. 12929 was in quo warranto and was commenced July 24, 1953. The instant case was No. 12927. It was agreed that for purpose of trial, the four cases should be consolidated with the record made to be applicable to each case where possible. After a hearing the trial court dismissed the petition in each case, and in each case an appeal was taken by the respective plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs in their petition set forth many things alleged to be in violation of Chapter 276, Code 1950, I.C.A., and under which the proceedings were instituted. Chief among them are: (1) The order of dismissal made by the board of education on April 13, 1953, was a finality, and (2) The meetings of the board on May 18, 1953, and June 1, 1953, when the final order was made establishing the boundaries of the proposed extension, were void since less than a quorum of the board participated therein. Defendant by answer entered a denial and as to (1), above, asserts that the legality of the proceedings of April 13, 1953, have been legally determined, adverse to plaintiffs, in an action in certiorari, (Case No. 12860), and is res judicata.

A chronological statement of the proceedings is as follows: The petition was filed in February, 1953. After a hearing of objections, the County Superintendent overruled the same. An appeal was taken to the County Board of Education, a date set for the hearing and notice thereof given. On April 13, 1953, after a hearing, the board voted, three to two, to dismiss the petition and notice of such action was duly published. On May 5, 1953, an action of certiorari, entitled Consolidated School District of Elvira v. Board of Education of Clinton County (Case No. 12860), was commenced in which the validity of the April 13, 1953, action was questioned. On May 14, 1953, the trial court sustained the writ, holding that two members of the Board of Education, who participated in the hearing, were disqualified under Section 276.10, Code 1950, I.C.A., and directed the Board to proceed with the fixing of the boundaries. Pursuant [245 Iowa 1247] to such order, the remaining three members of the Board met on May 18, 1953, and voted to establish the boundaries as set forth in the petition, except as to territory located in Lincoln Township which was eliminated. At the adjourned meeting on June 1, 1953, objection to A. E. Brandenburg, a member of the Board, serving was made and he withdrew from the hearing. The two remaining members continued with the hearing and, after overruling the objections interposed, voted to establish the boundaries as outlined in the May hearing. The election was held June 19, 1953, with the result above noted.

It was stipulated at the trial that the members of the County Board of Education are Wm. A. Siegmund, Herman L. Schultz, Merriell Cousins, H. D. Shaff and A. E. Brandenburg. Plaintiffs placed in evidence duly certified records of the proceedings of the County Board and rested their case. Defendant then offered in evidence what is known in the record as Exhibit D-1, being the original judgment entry signed by the presiding judge, in Case No. 12860, over the objection that said Exhibit was the original entry, no foundation had been laid for its introduction, and was incompetent, irrelevant

Page 171

and immaterial. While the court did not rule upon the objection, it is clear that it was overruled and so considered by the court in making its decision. There was also testimony offered as to A. E. Brandenburg's qualification to act at the May 18, 1953 meeting and some general evidence as to the general school situation and the defendant rested.

I. Plaintiffs' first assigned...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Butler v. Butler
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 3, 1962
    ...cases with reference to the doctrine of res judicata. We will only cite a few recent cases. State ex rel. Howson v. Con. School District, 245 Iowa 1244, 65 N.W.2d 168; In re Richardson's Estate, 250 Iowa 275, 93 N.W.2d 777; Phillips v. Cooper, Iowa, 112 N.W.2d 317; City of Chariton v. Blunk......
  • Buda v. Fulton, 52853
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 5, 1968
    ...of the department of public safety are rebuttably presumed to be regular. See State ex rel. Howson v. Consolidated Sch. Dist., 245 Iowa 1244, 1249, 65 N.W.2d 168. With regard to the foregoing see generally 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure § 205, page 556, and 2 Am.Jur.2d......
  • Haberer v. Amick, 98-2551
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 11, 1999
    ...the actions involve the same parties or their privies in res judicata analysis); State ex rel. Howson v. Consolidated School District, 245 Iowa 1244, 1248, 65 N.W.2d 168, 171 (1954); cf. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (Parklane) (testing whether it is fair to apply offen......
  • Third Missionary Baptist Church of Davenport v. Garrett, 52927
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 7, 1968
    ...the prior adjudication. We find no legally compelling reason to disagree. As stated in State ex rel. Howson v. Consolidated Sch. Dist., 245 Iowa 1244, 1248, 65 N.W.2d 168, 171: 'The doctrine of Page 775 res judicata is well established and it may exist under two situations: (1), As a bar to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Butler v. Butler
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 3, 1962
    ...cases with reference to the doctrine of res judicata. We will only cite a few recent cases. State ex rel. Howson v. Con. School District, 245 Iowa 1244, 65 N.W.2d 168; In re Richardson's Estate, 250 Iowa 275, 93 N.W.2d 777; Phillips v. Cooper, Iowa, 112 N.W.2d 317; City of Chariton v. Blunk......
  • Buda v. Fulton, 52853
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 5, 1968
    ...of the department of public safety are rebuttably presumed to be regular. See State ex rel. Howson v. Consolidated Sch. Dist., 245 Iowa 1244, 1249, 65 N.W.2d 168. With regard to the foregoing see generally 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure § 205, page 556, and 2 Am.Jur.2d......
  • Haberer v. Amick, 98-2551
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 11, 1999
    ...the actions involve the same parties or their privies in res judicata analysis); State ex rel. Howson v. Consolidated School District, 245 Iowa 1244, 1248, 65 N.W.2d 168, 171 (1954); cf. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (Parklane) (testing whether it is fair to apply offen......
  • Third Missionary Baptist Church of Davenport v. Garrett, 52927
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 7, 1968
    ...the prior adjudication. We find no legally compelling reason to disagree. As stated in State ex rel. Howson v. Consolidated Sch. Dist., 245 Iowa 1244, 1248, 65 N.W.2d 168, 171: 'The doctrine of Page 775 res judicata is well established and it may exist under two situations: (1), As a bar to......
  • 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