State ex rel. Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Riley

• Decision Date: 31 October 1884
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6, v. RILEY, County Clerk.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

85 Mo. 156

THE STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6,

v.RILEY, County Clerk.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1884.

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.--HON. W. H. SHERMAN, Judge.

REVERSED.

J. W. Boyd for appellant.

(1) An appeal lies from the judgment of the court in this case. R. S., sec. 3258; Ex parte Skaggs, 19 Mo. 339. (2) Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the county clerk to discharge his duty in extending the estimate of school taxes on the property within the district. State ex rel. v. Byers, 67 Mo. 706; State ex rel. v. Heath, 56 Mo. 231. (3) The county school commissioner has not the legal authority to change the boundary lines between school districts at his pleasure; he could not establish a boundary line different from the one voted on. The line which he attempts to establish cuts off from district six the land mentioned in the alternative writ, and as this action of the school commissioner is without authority, and absolutely void, this land is still in district six, and the court ought to so find in this kind of a proceeding. 56 Mo. 231; 58 Mo. 207. The case in 67 Mo. 706, is in many respects like this case; and under the law, as there laid down, and in section 7023 of the statutes, the relief asked should be granted.

B. J. Woodson for respondent.

The peremptory writ of mandamus was properly refused. The evidence in this case shows that district number five was formed in accordance with law, and has been acting as such school district for more than two years next before the bringing of this suit. If it be true, as appellant contends, that under section 7023 the commissioner had no power to vary the line voted on, quo warranto is the only proper remedy. 62 Mo. 247-252; 16 Mo. 88; 84 Ill. 162, 163; People v. Maynard, 15 Mich. 463, 470; Cooley on Const. Lim. (5 Ed) 311, side page 254, and cases cited. The formation of district number five, after its existence for more than two years, cannot be inquired into, or impeached, in a collateral proceeding. Rawson v. Von Riper, 1 Thomp., etc. (N. Y.) 370, or 5th U. S. Digest, new series, 677, Title Schools, sec. 12; 23 Ill. 463; 62 Mo. 252; Rice v. Shieles, 58 Mo. 116-122. The county clerks can only take school districts as they are furnished them by the school officers of their respective counties.

DEARMOND, C.

School district number five lay immediately north of and adjoining school district number six. The two districts voted upon a proposition to change their boundaries by taking out of the northeast corner of district six a mile square of its territory and giving it to district five. Number five voted for, and number six against the proposed change. The matter then went to the county commissioner, who decided to change the dividing line between the districts, by taking from number six and adding to number five, a strip two and a half miles long, from east to west, and varying in width from north to south from one-fourth to a half a mile. Thus, it is seen the commissioner assumed the power to detach from six and attach to five a portion of the mile square, a larger extent of territory not embraced in the proposition upon which the district voted. To be exact in statement, the commissioner took from six and added to five, two hundred and forty acres of the mile square before mentioned, and three hundred and sixty acres not alluded to in the proposition upon which the people voted. He transmitted to the clerks of the respective districts his said decision. The decision was entered upon the records of district five, but not upon those of district six, where it was disregarded. Number six sent to the county clerk the usual estimates for the district. The clerk refused to extend upon the proper books the assessment against the property which, by action of...