State ex rel. School Township of Douglas Township v. Kinkade
| Decision Date | 07 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | 34516 |
| Citation | 186 N.W. 662,192 Iowa 1362 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA ex rel. SCHOOL TOWNSHIP OF DOUGLAS TOWNSHIP, UNION COUNTY, et al., Appellants, v. E. E. KINKADE et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Union District Court.--P. C. WINTER, Judge.
ACTION in quo warranto, to test the legality of the organization of defendant school district, and to oust its officers. The basis of the action is the alleged illegality in organizing the district. The plaintiffs demanded a jury. The trial court sustained defendants' position that plaintiffs had waived a jury trial, and a jury was denied. Trial to the court which found for defendants, and dismissed the plaintiffs' petition, and taxed the costs to the relators. Plaintiffs appeal. The defendants have filed a cross-appeal from the action of the court in overruling defendants' motion to set aside the order of the trial court granting leave to bring this suit, and to dismiss the case; also from the overruling of defendants' motion to strike an amendment to the petition. The ruling on this motion to dismiss was withheld until the evidence was all in. All the evidence on the trial was offered in support of such motion, as well as on the merits. The motion was not passed on separately except as the court may have passed on it incidentally, in dismissing the petition. The contention of defendants is that these are but additional reasons why the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Higbee & McEniry, for appellants.
O. M Slaymaker, for appellees.
The defendant district was completely organized March 11, 1920. Fourteen months thereafter, this suit was brought. When the case was originally brought, the plaintiff school township, Charles Ours, and Henry West were named as the only relators. Later, an amendment to the petition was filed, in which ten other persons were added as relators. Plaintiffs claim that the district was illegally organized, in that the boundaries of the newly formed district did not conform to the lines of Subdistrict No. 4 in Douglas Township; that the board of education never approved the action of the county superintendent in fixing the boundaries; that, by so invading the territory of said Subdistrict No. 4, there were only three and one-half sections left in said subdistrict, contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute. Defendants say, in substance, that relator West requested that District No. 4 be divided in the way it was divided, and that he was not a citizen or landowner in defendant district, and has no interest in the questions involved; and that the other relator, Ours, signed the petition for consolidation and voted at the election for consolidation in favor thereof, and took part in the election of school directors, and was a candidate for director, and took part in the bond election, and voted at the same; that it is not clear from the record whether there were less than four sections left in said subdistrict; that the board of education did approve the action of the county superintendent in fixing the boundaries; that defendant district was properly organized; that plaintiff school township was not authorized by law to act as relator, and that neither it nor West nor Ours could, for the reasons given, act as relators or maintain this action; and that the added relators could not do so, because the amendment attempting to bring them in as such was filed too late, and was filed without the consent of the district court. Such amendment was filed June 21, 1921, which was more than 30 days after April 13, 1921, when Chapter 211, Acts of the Thirty-ninth General Assembly, took effect. This is the fact as to such added relators, but is not so as to the original relators, if such original relators were authorized to act as such and to maintain the action. The act just referred to provides, in substance, that an action in quo warranto, questioning the legality of the organization of a school district, may not be brought after six months, and that, as to districts theretofore organized, it must be brought within 30 days after the taking effect of the act. We do not understand appellees to contend that this statute applies to the relators other than those brought in in June, but that, for other reasons, the original relators may not, as said, maintain the action. They do contend, however, for the act of the legislature, that its passage indicates a policy that such actions must be brought promptly, which, as appellees say, was the law without the statute. We think the record does not show, as contended by appellees, that the board of education did fix the boundaries. As we understand the record, West filed objections before the county superintendent, but he did not reside upon or own land within the proposed boundaries, and he withdrew his objections. Defendants further allege, in a separate division of their answer, that the district was completely organized March 11, 1920; that the board of directors took charge of the affairs of the consolidated district at once after election; that all the old districts recognized the legality of the organization by turning over their funds; that a petition was circulated, and election held, and bonds voted; that taxes were certified and levied by the board of supervisors in the fall of 1920, and paid in 1921; that a central school was maintained at Cromwell, in said district, at the direction of said directors, during all the school year commencing September, 1920; that architects have been employed and plans and specifications have been prepared for the erection of a new schoolhouse, and that liability has been incurred; that busses have been bought, and other expenses incurred, all with the understanding and on the theory that the district was legally organized, and all with the knowledge, consent, acquiescence, and approval of the relators and of all of the citizens and taxpayers of Union and Adams Counties; that for these reasons the organization of said district has been so recognized, acquiesced in, ratified, and approved that objection cannot now be made thereto; and that those questioning the legality are barred and estopped from doing so.
Several questions are argued by both sides. We are, however, so clearly satisfied that plaintiffs may not maintain the action, because of their laches and acquiescence, that we deem it unnecessary to discuss the other questions argued. It is enough to say that we are satisfied with the findings of the trial court, including the finding that plaintiff waived a jury. We may say, in passing, that as to the merits, it seems to us that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial