State ex rel. School Dist. v. Lee
| Decision Date | 22 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 33211.,33211. |
| Citation | 66 S.W.2d 521 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of the School District of Kansas City, Relator, v. CHARLES A. LEE, State Superintendent of Public Schools. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
McCune, Caldwell & Downing for relator.
(1) The enactment of the Law of 1931 did not change the method of apportioning special aids under Sections 9218, 9220, 9223, 9431 and 9432, Revised Statutes 1929, and did not destroy the priority of payment to which they were and are entitled. Secs. 9218, 9220, 9223, 9431, 9432, 9257, R.S. 1929; Sec. 13, Laws 1931, pp. 334, 340. (a) The apportionment of the special aids in question is particularly excepted from the provisions of the Laws of 1931. Brown v. Patterson, 224 Mo. 658, 124 S.W. 1; Joplin Supply Co. v. Smith, 182 Mo. App. 219; State ex inf. v. Koeln, 270 Mo. 191, 192 S.W. 748; Little River Drainage Dist. v. Lassater, 325 Mo. 500, 29 S.W. (2d) 716; State ex rel. v. Fulks, 296 Mo. 625, 247 S.W. 129; 4 C.J. 1406; Secs. 9220, 9223, 9431, 9432, 9257, R.S. 1929; Sec. 13, Laws 1931, pp. 334, 340. (b) There is no impossibility or difficulty in harmonizing the Laws of 1931 with Sections 9220, 9223, and 9431-2 so as to provide for prior apportionment of the special aids in question. The fact that the general apportionment may now be made under the terms of the Law of 1931 and not under Section 9357 is immaterial. Little River Drainage Dist. v. Lassater, 325 Mo. 500, 29 S.W. (2d) 716; State ex inf. v. Koeln, 270 Mo. 191, 192 S.W. 748; Nichols v. Hobbs, 197 S.W. 259; Secs. 9220, 9223, 9240, 9257, R.S. 1929; Sec. 13, Laws of 1931, pp. 334, 340. The proration provision in the Laws of 1931 does not apply to the special aids in question. Brown v. Patterson, 224 Mo. 658, 124 S.W. 1; Secs. 9220, 9223, 9431, 9432, R.S. 1929; Sec. 13, Laws 1931, pp. 334, 340. (c) Section 21 of the Laws of 1931 has no effect upon this litigation. Nichols v. Hobbs, 197 S.W. 259; Sec. 21, Laws 1931, pp. 334, 346. (2) With respect to the deficiencies in the 1931-2 payment made to relator on account of the special aids for defectives, opportunity rooms and orphans, relator is entitled to have such deficiencies corrected before the apportionment for 1932-3 is made. State ex rel. School District v. Lee, 303 Mo. 641, 262 S.W. 340; Sec. 9259, R.S. 1929. (3) Reasons of policy require that the special aids should be preferred.
H.P. Lauf for respondent.
(1) While intent of the Legislature is to be found primarily in the language of the statute, if said language is uncertain the court may consider not only to the language but to the subject matter of the act. School Dist. No. 61 v. McFarland, 154 Mo. App. 411, 140 S.W. 1197. And court may look to the object to be accomplished. Boll v. Condie-Bray Glass Co., 321 Mo. 92. (2) And the purpose to be subserved. Betz v. Telephone Co., 24 S.W. (2d) 224. (3) And to the expendiency of the act. State v. Regan, 317 Mo. 1216; Betz v. Telephone Co., 24 S.W. (2d) 224. (4) And to the occasion and necessity for the legislation. State v. Diveling, 66 Mo. 375. (5) It is proper for the court to consider results and consequences of any proposed construction; Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 180; State v. Rombauer, 104 Mo. 619; City Road Dist. v. Johnson, 323 Mo. 990. (6) Reference may be had to extrinsic matter such as documents — documents referred to in the act which are used as basis of the act. (7) Court may refer to general facts of common knowledge or of public notoriety; 59 C.J., sec. 601, p. 1013. (8) Court will also place upon a statute a construction which will not result in injustice, oppression, hardship or inconvenience, unreasonableness, prejudice to public interest or to conclusions not intended by the legislative (59 C.J., secs. 568, 570-573, 574. State v. St. L.S.F. Ry., 318 Mo. 285; Bassen v. Monckton, 308 Mo. 641; State v. Sanderson, 280 Mo. 258; Johnston v. Ragan, 265 Mo. 420; State ex rel. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 34 S.W. (2d) 486; State v. So. Pac. Co., 34 N.M. 306; People v. Guarantee, etc., Co., 227 N.Y. 366, 125 N.E. 366; Railroad Co. v. Holt, 293 Fed. 155; State v. Lee, 319 Mo. 976; State ex rel. Pollock v. Becker, 289 Mo. 660; Southern Ry. Co. v. Matthews, 29 Fed. (2d) 52; Kansas ex rel. v. Bd. of Commrs. of Phillips Co., 26 Kan. 419. (9) The Act of 1931 provides an entirely new system for state aid and apportionment thereof. Where an act provides an entirely new system, all prior laws on the subject are repealed. Johnson's Estate, 33 Pa. St. 511; Commonwealth v. Mann, 168 Pa. St. 290; Devers v. York City, 156 Pa. St. 359; Goodenow v. Buttrick, 7 Mass. 140; Dunn v. Milanovich, 305 Pa. St. 401.
Original proceeding in mandamus. The Kansas City School District (herein designated "district") seeks to compel the State Superintendent of Schools (herein designated "superintendent") to set aside from the state public school fund of the fiscal year 1932-1933 the sum of $34,500 alleged to be due said district as state aid for the education of defective children before he makes apportionment of said fund. The fund is insufficient to pay in full the state aids to school districts. The district contends that the aid for defective children should be distributed under Section 9220, Revised Statutes 1929, which would give said aid a priority of payment in the distribution of said fund.
In substance, it is provided in said section that in August of each year and before apportioning the state school fund in accordance with Section 9257, Revised Statutes 1929, the superintendent shall set aside from said fund certain state aids, among them being an aid for the education of defective children in the school districts entitled to said aid. Unless otherwise stated, all references herein to sections of the statute refer to Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1929.
In 1931 the Legislature made quite a change in the method of distributing the state school funds. [Secs. 13, 16, 19, Laws 1931, pp. 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 346.] The change may be indicated by summarizing the old law and the new law as follows:
OLD LAW NEW LAW
Previous to 1931. Act of 1931
1. Rural Aid—Sec. 9285 1. Equalization Aid—Sec. 13
Laws 1931
2. Rural High School Aid 2. Teacher & Attendance—
—Sec. Section 13, Laws
9292 1931, and Sec. 9257
3. High School Aid—Sections 3. Defectives — Sec. 13
9399 and 9401 Laws 1931, and Section 9220
4. Consolidated Aid—Section 9358 4. Opportunity Rooms—
9358 section 13, Laws 1931
and section 9223.
5. Defectives—section 9220 5. Orphans — Sec. 13, Laws
1931, and section
9431
6. Opportunity Rooms—section 6. Tuition—section 16,
9223 Laws 1931
7. Orphans—section 9431 7. Transportation—section
16, Laws 1931
8. Teacher & Attendance quota 8. Buildings—section 19,
to all districts — Sec, 9257 Laws 1931
9. Consolidated — section
13, Laws 1931 and section
9358.
Under the old law the first seven were special aids, after the payment of which the balance of the fund was distributed to all the districts as teacher and attendance quota. [No. 8, Old Law.] Under said law there was no priority of payment as between the seven special aids. It will be noted that Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the old law were abandoned in the new law as a method of distributing the fund. The equalization and teacher and attendance aids in the new law were substituted for rural, rural high school and high school aids in the old law. The new law continued a modified aid for consolidated districts. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the new law are additional aids.
The new law was enacted under a title which announced that it was an act providing for state support to public schools; providing conditions under which such support might be obtained; providing for the apportionment of the public school funds of the State and repealing all conflicting laws or parts of laws relating to state aids for schools and apportionments of state funds for the maintenance thereof. [Laws 1931, p. 334.]
[1] Under Section 13 of said act (Laws 1931) provision is made for equalization aid. Thereafter said section with Section 9257 provides for teacher and attendance quota. Thereafter and immediately following said last named provision, it is provided in said Section 13 as follows:
"Provided, that special state aid shall continue to be apportioned as now or hereafter provided by Sections 9220, 9223 and/or 9431, Revised Statutes 1929."
The district contends that the special aid provided in Section 9220, is excepted from the provisions of the Act of 1931 by the above-quoted clause. The superintendent contends that by reference, Section 9220 is incorporated into, and made a part of said act.
We are inclined to the view of the superintendent. The mere use of the word "provided" does not convert the words following into a "proviso" in the strict legal sense. The word may be used in the conjunctive sense. [Castilo v. State Highway Commission, 312 Mo. 244, l.c. 269, 279 S.W. 673.] We think it was so used and that the Legislature...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanrahan v. Alterman
...Guam v. Kaanehe, 137 F.Supp. 189 (D.Guam 1956).17 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 71 (1953). See Werntz v. Jennings, 101 A.2d at 809; State v. Lee, 66 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Mo.1933).18 82 C.J.S. Statutes §§ 70, 370 (1953); Young v. United States, 178 F.2d at 80. Government of Guam v. Kaanehe, 137 F.Supp. a......
-
State ex rel. School Dist. of City of Independence v. Jones
...district). State ex rel. School District of Pattonville v. Lee, 336 Mo. 1069, 83 S.W.2d 87 (Mo. banc 1935), State ex rel. School District of Kansas City v. Lee, 66 S.W.2d 524 (Mo. banc 1933), State ex rel. School District of Kansas City v. Lee, 66 S.W.2d 523 (Mo. banc 1933), and State ex re......
-
General Installation Co. v. University City
...v. Missouri, 331 U.S. 857, 67 S.Ct. 1746, 91 L.Ed. 1864; State v. Rogers, 253 Mo. 399, 161 S.W. 770; State ex rel. School District of Kansas City v. Lee, 334 Mo. 513, 66 S.W.2d 521, 523; State v. Lloyd, 320 Mo. 236, 7 S.W.2d 344, 346; State v. Peyton, 234 Mo. 517, 137 S.W. 979, 980; 82 C.J.......