State ex rel. Schmutzler v. Young

• Decision Date: 31 October 1884
• Citation: 84 Mo. 90
• Parties: THE STATE EX REL. SCHMUTZLER et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. YOUNG, County School Commissioner.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

84 Mo. 90

THE STATE EX REL. SCHMUTZLER et al., Plaintiffs in Error,

v.YOUNG, County School Commissioner.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1884.

Error to Cole Circuit Court.--HON. E. L. EDWARDS, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

N. C. Kouns, and Edwards & Davison, for plaintiff in error.

(1) It is admitted that the usual function of a writ of mandamus is to compel an inferior court or officer to act when he has refused to discharge his duty. State ex rel. Adamson v. Lafayette county, 41 Mo. 221. This is not the only function of the writ. In the language of Mr. High, it lies to determine the jurisdiction of an inferior court or officer, and to correct any error growing out of a mistake as to jurisdiction. High on Extra. Legal Rem., § 69, and note. It also issues when the officer has acted or refused to act without jurisdictional facts. High on Extra. Legal Rem., § 88. In this state, where a circuit judge on demurrer decided a statute to be unconstitutional, and, therefore, held that his court had no jurisdiction, on mandamus, his judgment as to the constitutionality of the statute was overruled and he was required to assume jurisdiction and try the case. State ex rel. Harris v. Laughlin, 75 Mo. 358. So also where a county court made a mistake as to their jurisdiction to grant a license and overruled the petitioner's application, by reason of this mistake, the Supreme Court on mandamus set aside that judgment and ordered them to grant the license. State ex rel. Fitzpatrick v. County Court of Nodaway county, 80 Mo. 601. (2) Neither the county school commissioner nor the directors had power under the statute to make any change in the school district, except upon petition signed by ten qualified voters resident in each district, as required by law, nor to change the site of a school house, further away from the center of the district, without a vote of two-thirds of the qualified voters resident in the district. R. S., 1879, § 7023, as amended in 1883; Session Acts 1883, pp. 182, 185. These facts are jurisdictional and are always open to investigation and contradiction, and the doctrine of estoppel does not apply, and mandamus is the proper remedy to correct the action of the commissioner taken by him in the absence of these jurisdictional facts. People v. Commissioner of Highways, 27 Barb. 86; Jefferson County v. Cowan, 54 Mo. 234.

Edwin Silver, for defendant in error.

(1) This proceeding by relators cannot be maintained, its object being to require R. E. Young, the county school commissioner of Cole county, to rescind and vacate an order in a matter as to which he acted in a judicial capacity, and in which by express provision of statute his decision is final. Revised Statutes 1879, section 7023; acts 1883, p. 182; County Court, etc. v. Inhabitants, etc., 10 Mo. 679; Dunklin County v. District County Court, 23 Mo. 449; State ex rel. v. Byers, 67 Mo. 706. (2) Whether or not the signers to the petition to the school board to post a notice of the election possessed the requisite qualifications, was a preliminary question of fact, to be passed on and determined by the school board to which the petition was addressed, and the board having determined it, it is not open for review in this proceeding. Snoddy v. Pettis County, 45 Mo. 364; Queen v. Justice, etc., 13 Eng. Com. Law, 985; Brittain v. Kinnaird, 1 Brod. & Bing. 432. (3) The petition of the ten qualified voters mentioned in Revised Statutes, section 7023, is not a necessary jurisdictional step in the matter of a vote to change the school district boundaries. The notice of the proposition for a change, required to be posted by the directors twenty days before the annual meeting, is really the jurisdictional step in the proceedings.

MARTIN, C.

This is a petition for the writ of mandamus, in the name of the state, at the relation of Schmutzler, Sanning, and Lauf, directors of a certain school district in Cole county, against Robert E. Young, county commissioner of schools, in which the circuit court is asked to issue its writ of mandamus requiring said commissioner to vacate a certain order or decision made by him, and to dismiss the matter before him in which his decision was made, for want of jurisdiction to hear and determine the same. On the petition an alternative writ was issued, which on motion of defendant was quashed. The petition was thereupon dismissed, from which action of the court the plaintiffs sue out their writ of error.

The decision of the commissioner complained of was made by him under authority of section 7023, Revised Statutes, 1879. Said section relates to the formation of new school districts, and directs that when a new district is to be formed composed of portions of two or more districts, or the boundary lines of any district are to be changed, it shall be the duty of the directors of the districts affected, upon the reception of a petition signed by ten qualified voters residing in either of the districts affected, desiring such change, to post a notice thereof in each district interested, twenty days prior to the time of the annual meeting. The voters, when assembled, are to decide such questions by a majority vote. If the assent to the formation of a new district or change of boundary lines is given by all the annual meetings of the various districts thus voting, the...