State ex rel. Reorganized School Dist. R-2 of Newton County v. Robinson, R-2

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtSTONE; RUARK
Citation276 S.W.2d 235
Decision Date15 February 1955
Docket NumberNo. 7301,R-2
PartiesSTATE ex rel. REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICTOF NEWTON COUNTY, Missouri, Relator, v. C. M. ROBINSON, County Superintendent of Schools, and C. M. Robinson, Russell Bogle, Lawton Lawson, James P. Austin and Clifford Kirk, as Board of Arbitrators, Respondents.

Page 235

276 S.W.2d 235
STATE ex rel. REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT R-2 OF NEWTON
COUNTY, Missouri, Relator,
v.
C. M. ROBINSON, County Superintendent of Schools, and C. M.
Robinson, Russell Bogle, Lawton Lawson, James P.
Austin and Clifford Kirk, as Board of
Arbitrators, Respondents.
No. 7301.
Springfield Court of Appeals, Missouri.
Feb. 15, 1955.
Rehearing Denied March 14, 1955.

Page 236

Wayne V. Slankard, Neosho, for relator.

John M. Rice, George Henry, Neosho, for respondents.

STONE, Judge.

In this proceeding in certiorari, the county superintendent of schools of Newton County and members of a board of arbitration appointed under Section 165.170 (applicable in the instant situation by virtue of Section 165.293), who were respondents below and are hereinafter referred to as such, appeal from a judgment of the circuit court which quashed 'the judgment record' of said board of arbitration changing the boundary line between Reorganized School District No. R-2 (relator below and hereinafter referred to either as 'relator' or as 'the Midway District'), and Consolidated School District No. C-1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Fairview District'). (Unless otherwise specifically stated, all statutory references herein are to RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.) At their annual school meetings in April, 1953, the Fairview District voted in favor of the proposed change of boundary line but the Midway District voted against such change. Upon appeal by the Fairview District, the county superintendent of schools appointed a board of arbitration which, on April 21, 1953, met in the office of the county superintendent and rendered a signed 'report', the pertinent portion of which was that 'after careful consideration of the question of the matter of changing the boundary so that the district commonly known as Linwood--Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 35, Township 25, Range 29--would be attached to the Fairview School District C-1 and detached from the Midway School District R-2, the board voted three for the change and one against the change.'

Certiorari presents only questions of law on the record brought up by the return and does not permit consideration of issues of fact [State ex rel. Police Retirement System of City of St. Louis v. Murphy, 359 Mo. 854, 224 S.W.2d 68, 73(12)], and evidence and exhibits, even though incorporated in the return, may not be considered unless they are properly a part of the record [State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Neaf, 346 Mo. 86, 139 S.W.2d 958, 962-963(8, 9)]. The chief purpose

Page 237

of certiorari being to confine an inferior tribunal within its jurisdictional limits [State ex rel. Police Retirement System of City of St. Louis v. Murphy, supra, 224 S.W.2d loc.cit. 73(11); State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Neaf, supra, 139 S.W.2d loc.cit. 961(2)], the writ affords relief not only where the inferior tribunal is without jurisdiction but also where such tribunal abuses or acts in excess of its rightful jurisdiction [State ex rel. Woodmansee v. Ridge, 343 Mo. 702, 123 S.W.2d 20, 23(3)].

Although a board of arbitration appointed under Section 165.170 is not a court in a constitutional sense [Const. of 1945, Art. 5, Sec. 1, 2, V.A.M.S.; School Dist. No. 16 v. New London School Dist., 181 Mo.App. 583, 164 S.W. 688, 690(2); State ex rel. Keitel v. Harris, 353 Mo. 1043, 186 S.W.2d 31, 33(2)], the reported opinions reflect frequent references to such board as 'a judicial tribunal' [State ex rel. School Dist. No. 1 v. Denny, 94 Mo.App. 559, 72 S.W. 467, 468] or as an 'inferior tribunal' [State ex rel. School Dist. No. 1 v. Andrae, 216 Mo. 617, 116 S.W. 561, 562; State ex rel. King v. Moreland, Mo.App., 189 S.W. 602, 604; School Dist. No. 14 v. Sims, 193 Mo.App. 480, 186 S.W. 4, 6; School Dist. No. 2 v. Pace, 113 Mo.App. 134, 87 S.W. 580, 583] or simply as a 'tribunal' [School Dist. No. 58 of Pike County v. Chappel, 155 Mo.App. 498, 135 S.W. 75, 78, 79]. We are told that '(t)here can be no doubt that (the) finding and decision by the board of arbitrators * * * is a judgment' [School Dist. No. 58 of Pike County v. Chappel, supra, 135 S.W. loc.cit. 77], and we find other references to the board's decision as a 'judgment' [State ex rel. Rose v. Job, 205 Mo. 1, 103 S.W. 493, 501, 502; State ex inf. Richeson v. Cummins, 114 Mo.App. 93, 89 S.W. 74, 75; State ex rel. School Dist. No. 1 v. Denny, supra, 72 S.W. loc.cit. 469]. It would seem to be clear that determination of a boundary line dispute by a board of arbitration necessarily involves performance of duties judicial or quasi judicial in nature [State ex rel. and to use of Parman v. Manring, 332 Mo. 235, 58 S.W.2d 269, 273; State ex rel. Hanna v. Ross, 220 Mo.App. 388, 286 S.W. 726, 727(1); In re City of Kinloch, 362 Mo. 434, 242 S.W.2d 59, 63(6)], and that accordingly certiorari, which lies only where the action to be reviewed is judicial or quasi judicial in nature [State ex rel. Davidson v. Caldwell, 310 Mo. 397, 276 S.W. 631, 634(5); State ex rel. Adams v. Crain, Mo.App., 201 S.W.2d 426, 429(2), and cases there cited], may be employed to review the award or judgment of such board of arbitration [School Dist. No. 14 v. Sims, supra, 186 S.W. loc.cit. 6(4); State ex rel. King v. Moreland, supra, 189 S.W. loc.cit. 604(3)].

Relator concedes in the instant case 'that the procedure leading up to the hearing by the board of arbitration was regular' and thus that the board had jurisdiction to hear and determine the boundary line dispute; but, it is insisted that 'the record of the board of arbitration should be quashed because it shows upon its face that the board acted without and in excess of its authority granted under the statute (Section 165.170) in that it considered the proposition of changing the boundary line and voted to change the boundary line but did not do the only thing it was required or had a right to do under the statute and that is to consider the necessity for the change of boundary.' In determining the question here presented, we confine ourselves to the final award or judgment of the board, that being the only record which the county superintendent of schools or the board is required to make and keep [School Dist. No. 35 v. Hodgins, 180 Mo. 70, 79 S.W. 148, 151; State ex rel. King v. Moreland, supra, 189 S.W. loc.cit. 604; School Dists. Nos. 18, 19, 29, 30, Webster County v. Yates, 161 Mo.App. 107, 142 S.W. 791, 793; School Dist. No. 58 of Pike County v. Chappel, supra, 135 S.W. loc.cit. 78-79; School District No. 2 v. Pace, supra, 87 S.W. loc.cit. 582; State ex rel. School Dist. No. 1 v. Denny, supra, 72 S.W. loc.cit.

Page 238

468(2)], 1 and we accord no consideration to an amended report by the board which contained an express finding 'that the proposed change is necessary' but which admittedly had been 'prepared and executed after the writ of certiorari had been issued and served.' "After the certiorari has been served on the inferior tribunal, the latter is powerless to alter its record or decree, even for the purpose of correcting mistakes, unless the record itself furnishes the means of making the correction, or the error is a mistake in the arithmetic of the court." State ex rel. Adler v. Ossing, 336 Mo. 386, 79 S.W.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • School Dist. No. 7 of Wallowa County v. Weissenfluh
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 18, 1963
    ...People ex rel. Harty v. Gully, 2 Ill.App.2d 321, 119 N.E.2d 540 (1954); State ex rel. Reorganized School District v. Robinson, Mo.App., 276 S.W.2d 235 (1955); School District No. 49 v. School District No. 65-R, 159 Neb. 262, 66 N.W.2d 561 (1954); Anderson v. Peterson, 78 N.D. 949, 54 N.W.2d......
  • Meloy v. Reorganized School Dist. R-1 of Reynolds County, R-1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 29, 1982
    ...ex rel. Fisher v. Fisher, 433 S.W.2d 63, 65(2) (Mo.App.1968); State ex rel. Reorganized School Dist. R-2 of Newton County v. Robinson, 276 S.W.2d 235, 240(11) 4 England v. Eckley, 330 S.W.2d 738, 744(7) (Mo.1960); State ex rel. Kugler v. Tillatson, 312 S.W.2d 753, 757(8) (banc 1958); Adamic......
  • State ex rel. Koster v. McCarver, No. ED 97414.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 19, 2012
    ...the return and does not permit consideration of issues of fact.” State ex rel. Reorganized School Dist. R–2 of Newton County v. Robinson, 276 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Mo.App.1955). “[E]very lawful intendment will be made in favor of the determination and the regularity of the proceedings below.” St......
  • England v. Eckley, No. 2
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1959
    ...than technical compliance * * * will suffice.' State ex rel. Reorganized School District R-2 of Newton County v. Robinson, Mo.App., 276 S.W.2d 235, 240; State ex rel. School Dist. No. 34, Lincoln Co. v. Begeman, 221 Mo.App. 257, 2 S.W.2d 110, 111; State ex rel. Kugler v. Tillatson, Mo., 312......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • School Dist. No. 7 of Wallowa County v. Weissenfluh
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 18, 1963
    ...People ex rel. Harty v. Gully, 2 Ill.App.2d 321, 119 N.E.2d 540 (1954); State ex rel. Reorganized School District v. Robinson, Mo.App., 276 S.W.2d 235 (1955); School District No. 49 v. School District No. 65-R, 159 Neb. 262, 66 N.W.2d 561 (1954); Anderson v. Peterson, 78 N.D. 949, 54 N.W.2d......
  • Meloy v. Reorganized School Dist. R-1 of Reynolds County, R-1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 29, 1982
    ...ex rel. Fisher v. Fisher, 433 S.W.2d 63, 65(2) (Mo.App.1968); State ex rel. Reorganized School Dist. R-2 of Newton County v. Robinson, 276 S.W.2d 235, 240(11) 4 England v. Eckley, 330 S.W.2d 738, 744(7) (Mo.1960); State ex rel. Kugler v. Tillatson, 312 S.W.2d 753, 757(8) (banc 1958); Adamic......
  • State ex rel. Koster v. McCarver, No. ED 97414.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 19, 2012
    ...the return and does not permit consideration of issues of fact.” State ex rel. Reorganized School Dist. R–2 of Newton County v. Robinson, 276 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Mo.App.1955). “[E]very lawful intendment will be made in favor of the determination and the regularity of the proceedings below.” St......
  • England v. Eckley, No. 2
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1959
    ...than technical compliance * * * will suffice.' State ex rel. Reorganized School District R-2 of Newton County v. Robinson, Mo.App., 276 S.W.2d 235, 240; State ex rel. School Dist. No. 34, Lincoln Co. v. Begeman, 221 Mo.App. 257, 2 S.W.2d 110, 111; State ex rel. Kugler v. Tillatson, Mo., 312......
  • 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