State ex rel. Osborn v. Richardson, 39114
| Citation | 174 Kan. 382,256 P.2d 135 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 39114,39114 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. OSBORN v. RICHARDSON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Under the provisions of G.S.1951 Supp. 72-507, where a common school district is located wholly or partially within the boundaries of a rural high school, the common school district and the rural high school district through the action of their boards may unite in the construction of a school building for the joint use of both of such districts without holding an election on the subject of uniting.
2. Under the facts set forth in syllabus 1, a rural high school district and a common school district may, through the action of their boards, select a site for the erection of a school building for the joint use of both of such districts without submitting the question of selecting a site to the electors of the district.
3. Where the notice of bond elections to be held by a rural high school district and a joint common school district set out the amount of bonds to be issued by each district for the construction of a common school building, and the notice gives the estimated or approximate cost of the building and informs the electors that $108,461 was to be paid by the Federal Government, the notice is not void because the word 'grant' is used in connection with the money to be supplied by the Federal Government by way of the purchase of the old building.
4. The record is examined and it is held, that the trial court did not err in holding that the pertinent statutes mentioned in the opinion were constitutional.
E. H. Hatcher, of Topeka, argued the cause, and W. H. Clark, of Hoxie, Marion W. Chipman, of Hill City, and Kenneth Clark, of Hoxie, were with him on the briefs for appellants.
Robert Osborn, of Stockton, argued the cause, and D. A. Hindman and Stanley Krysl, both of Stockton, were with him on the briefs for appellee and cross-appellant.
This was an action brought to enjoin the respective school boards of Rural High School District No. 3 of Rooks County, and Joint Common School District No. U-3, Rooks and Graham Counties, from issuing general obligation bonds, as authorized by an election held by each school district on December 5, 1952, for the purpose of constructing a school building for the joint use of both such districts.
Presently Joint Common School District U-3, Rooks and Graham Counties, is the owner of a school building in which classes are conducted for the common school and rural high school. Rural High School District No. 3 is the owner of an auditorium, located on the land owned by the common school district, and is used by both districts for music and athletics. The ground and buildings were taken and to be paid for by the Federal government, in connection with the construction of Webster Dam.
The board members of the two school districts met and selected a new site for the construction of a joint school building. Notice of bond election for each district was published for the purpose of issuing bonds for the erection of a joint school building. Both elections were held on December 5, 1952. The result of the elections showed the bonds carried in each district.
An action to enjoin the issuance of bonds was commenced in the name of the State of Kansas on relation of the County Attorney of Rooks County, against the respective school districts, to which the defendant school districts filed their answer. A motion for judgment was filed by the County Attorney of Rooks County, hereinafter referred to as appellee, on pleadings thus joined, raising questions of law arising out of certain undisputed facts contained in the pleadings. The trial court sustained appellee's motion on the ground that the respective school boards had no authority to determine the question of uniting for the purpose of constructing a joint building and selecting a site for such proposed building, and that the notice of election was defective in certain particulars, and overruled appellee's motion on the constitutionality of the statutes involved. From the court's ruling sustaining the mentioned portion of the motion, the school districts, hereinafter called appellants, appeal, and from the order of the trial court overruling appellee's attack on the constitutionality of the statute involved, appellee cross-appeals. Inasmuch as the questions presented on appeal are definite, it is unnecessary here to digest the pleadings or make a statement of facts leading up to the questions involved as they will be treated, where necessary, in discussing each question submitted.
At the outset, appellee questions the right of appellant school districts to be heard on the ground that the director and one of the members of the school board of Joint Common School District No. U-3 filed an affidavit subsequent to the appeal taken in this action, stating that he does not desire the appeal to be presented in his name as director of the Joint Common School District U-3, and that he is satisfied with the judgment of the trial court, and that as director of the Joint Common School District he has the right to control the litigation. It is unnecessary to decide this question inasmuch as any action taken on the part of the mentioned director would have no effect over the rights of the appellant, Rural High School District No. 3, to be heard on its appeal. The interests of both the high school district and the common school district are joint and mutual. They have prosecuted this case through the district court, and from that judgment each has appealed to this court and, in no event, can it be said that the director of the Joint Common School District board has right to control the litigation of the Rural High School District. The appellant High School District has a right to have the questions raised on this appeal determined. There is no merit in appellee's contention that the appeal should be dismissed.
The first question presented to this court which must be answered is--whether in the case of a common school district, located wholly or partly within the boundaries of a rural high school district, the common school district and the rural high school district may unite in the construction of a school building for the joint use of both such districts without holding an election on the subject of uniting?
It should be understood that both schools are using common buildings at the present time. The ground and buildings have been taken over by the Federal government to make way for the construction of the Webster Dam; that it will be necessary that new ground and buildings be obtained for educational purposes, either separately or jointly, for the districts involved. The questions presented to this court resolve themselves into the interpretation of G.S.1951 Supp. 72-507 to G.S.1949, which provides as follows:
Appellee contends that the legislative authorization under the foregoing statute for unitizing is vested in the joint common school district and rural high school district, and not in the school boards, as contended by the appellant, and invite our attention to G.S.1949, 72-317, providing for the building of joint school buildings. It may be noted at this point that the statute quoted above is a revision of G.S.1949, 72-317 which, before revised, read as follows:
'That any common-school district located wholly or partly within the boundaries of any rural high-school district may unite with such rural high-school district in the construction of a school building or school buildings for the joint use of both such districts, upon such terms and conditions as the respective boards of such districts may agree, provided, the joint building shall have been authorized by a majority vote of the electors of each of such districts voting at either an annual or special school meeting.'
The two statutes differ in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. City of Wichita
... ... waste and unreasonable use of the water of the state, is examined, and as more fully set forth in the opinion, ... of the unconstitutionality of the Act: That State ex rel. Emery v. Knapp, 167 Kan. 546, 207 P.2d 440, which ... (State ex rel. Osborn v. Richardson, 174 Kan. 382, 256 P.2d 135; and State ex ... ...
-
State ex rel. Anderson v. Fadely
...it. Missionary Baptist State Convention of Kansas v. Wimberly Chapel Baptist Church, 170 Kan. 684, 228 P.2d 540; State ex rel. Osborn v. Richardson, 174 Kan. 382, 256 P.2d 135. Plaintiff asserts that the emergency fund appropriation acts are not 'specific appropriation[s] made by law' as re......
-
Babcock v. Kansas City
...or the deleting of a phrase of the original act raises a presumption that a change of meaning was intended. (State ex rel. Osborn v. Richardson, 174 Kan. 382, 256 P.2d 135; Leslie v. Reynolds, 179 Kan. 422, 428, 295 P.2d 1076.) It has also been held that in determining the legislative purpo......
-
State v. Gunn, 85,144.
...it was construed in Avery. We must presume the legislature intended to effect such a change in the existing law (State, ex rel., v. Richardson, 174 Kan. 382, 386, 256 P.2d 135; Horyna v. Board of County Commissioners, 194 Kan. 445, 448, 399 P.2d 844) and that it was fully aware of the impac......