State ex rel. School Dist. of Affton v. Smith

• Citation: 80 S.W.2d 858,336 Mo. 703
• Parties: State of Missouri at the Relation of School District of Affton, Relator, v. Forrest Smith, State Auditor
• Decision Date: 09 March 1935
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

80 S.W.2d 858

336 Mo. 703

State of Missouri at the Relation of School District of Affton, Relator, v. Forrest Smith, State Auditor

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 9, 1935

Rehearing Overruled March 9, 1935.

Alternative writ quashed.

Thomas G. Woolsey for relator.

(1) Technical objections as to the sufficiency of a school board's records will not be sustained where the records show a substantial compliance with legal requirements. State ex inf. v. Thompson, 260 S.W. 85; State ex inf. v. Bird, 295 Mo. 352, 244 S.W. 940; State ex rel. v. Sims, 201 S.W. 911; State ex inf. v. Clardy, 267 Mo. 371, 185 S.W. 184; State ex inf. v. Jones, 266 Mo. 191, 181 S.W. 50; State ex rel. v. Job, 205 Mo. 34, 103 S.W. 502. (2) The court will take cognizance of the fact that school district records are made and kept by persons who are not necessarily schooled in the niceties of legal procedure. State ex inf. v. McKown 315 Mo. 1350, 290 S.W. 129; State ex rel. v. Sims, 201 S.W. 911; State ex inf. v. Jones, 266 Mo. 191, 181 S.W 50; State ex rel. v. Job, 205 Mo. 34, 103 S.W. 502. (3) Laws affecting the organization of school district will be liberally construed. State ex inf. v. McKown, 315 Mo. 1350, 290 S.W. 129; Hudgins v. School District, 312 Mo. 11, 278 S.W. 771; State ex inf. v. Thompson, 260 S.W. 85; State ex rel. v. School District, 238 S.W. 821; State ex inf. v. Foxworthy, 301 Mo. 383, 256 S.W. 468; State ex rel. v. Sims, 201 S.W. 911; State ex inf. v. Jones, 266 Mo. 191, 181 S.W. 50; State ex rel. v. Job, 205 Mo. 34, 103 S.W. 502. (4) School district records may be supplemented, aided or explained by parol. 22 C. J., sec. 1706, p. 1279; Bonsack & Pearce v. School District, 49 S.W.2d 1088; Peter v. Kaufmann, 327 Mo. 923, 38 S.W.2d 1065; State ex rel. v. Guinn, 309 Mo. 300, 274 S.W. 459; State ex rel. v. Glaves, 268 Mo. 107, 186 S.W. 687.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Covell R. Hewitt, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

(1) When the bond involved in the proceeding was presented to respondent for registration, it became his duty to determine whether or not all of the conditions of law had been complied with in the issuance thereof. Secs. 2915, 2920, R. S. 1929. (2) In determining whether all conditions of the law had been complied with in the issuance of the bond, it was the duty of respondent to determine, among other things, whether or not the bond was being issued by a legally organized and existing school district. State ex rel. Buckley v. Thompson, 323 Mo. 248, 19 S.W.2d 714; State ex rel. School District v. Thompson, 325 Mo. 1170, 30 S.W.2d 603. (3) Where a pretended town school district is unable to produce proper evidence to show that it is a duly and legally organized district, bonds attempted to be issued by such district are not entitled to registration by the State Auditor. Secs. 2915, 2920, R. S. 1929; State ex rel. Buckley v. Thompson, 323 Mo. 248, 19 S.W.2d 714. (4) A school district may speak only through its records where, as here, the statute requires that a record of proceedings be kept. Sec. 9289, R. S. 1929; 23 R. C. L., secs. 6, 9, pp. 158-160; Thornburg v. School District, 175 Mo. 24, 75 S.W. 84; Martin v. Bennett, 122 S.W. 780; Kane & Co. v. School District, 48 Mo.App. 414. (5) Parol evidence is not admissible to supplement, explain or contradict a school district record. 2 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations (2 Ed.), sec. 653, p. 505; Keating v. Skiles, 72 Mo. 97. (6) A board of directors of a common school district has no jurisdiction to submit a proposal to organize a town school district unless petitioned therefor by at least ten qualified voters who are resident taxpayers of the district. Sec. 9326, R. S. 1929. (a) The board's jurisdiction must appear on the face of its record. 43 C. J., sec. 45, p. 96; Thornburg v. School District, 175 Mo. 24, 75 S.W. 84; Board of Supervisors v. Ottley, 112 So. 466; West v. Mayor and Aldermen, 119 So. 809.

Frank, C. J. All concur, except Coles, J., not sitting.

OPINION

FRANK

Mandamus to compel the State Auditor to register one of a series of bonds issued by the School District of Affton, St. Louis County, Missouri. Issuance of the writ was waived. Respondent accepted relator's petition as and for the writ and made return thereto in which he admits the facts alleged in the petition for the writ, and further alleges reasons why the bond should not be registered. Relator then moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Respondent does not question the legality of the steps taken looking to the issuance of the bonds. The only reason assigned by him for refusing to register the bond is that relator was not legally organized as a town school district and therefore had no authority to issue bonds of any kind.

Section 2915, Revised Statutes 1929, prescribes the duties of the State Auditor relative to the registration of bonds. The pertinent part of that section reads as follows:

"Before any bond hereafter issued for any purpose whatever by any . . . school district . . . shall obtain validity or be negotiated, such bond shall be presented to the state auditor, who shall, if in the issuance thereof all of the conditions of the law have been complied with, register the same, in a book or books, to be provided for that purpose; and the auditor shall certify, by endorsement on such bond, that all conditions of the laws have been complied with in its issuance, if such be the case, and that the evidence of that fact has been filed and preserved by him. . . ." (Italics ours.)

It will be noted that this statute not only provides that the auditor must certify by endorsement on the bond that all conditions of the law were complied with in the issuance of the bond, but he must also certify that the evidence of that fact has been filed and preserved by him. Necessarily this provision of the statute means that the auditor must file and preserve authenticated copies of the record made by the school board showing that all conditions of the law were complied with in the issuance of the bond, because the auditor is not authorized to hold hearings and take and preserve evidence dehors the record for the purpose of determining that fact. Moreover, the statute, Section 9289, Revised Statutes 1929, requires the clerk of the district to keep a correct record of the proceedings of all meetings of the board. Where the law requires a record of the proceedings of a board to be kept, the record is not only the best evidence but, primarily, is the only evidence by which the action of the board may be shown. We so held in Thornburg v. School District, 175 Mo. 12, 24-26, 75 S.W. 81. That was a suit to recover on bonds issued by a school district. We there said:

"What the law requires to be done in order to confer authority on the board of directors for the school district to issue bonds, must in order to make out the plaintiff's case, be shown to have been done by evidence other than recitals on the face of the bonds, and if the law requires a record of the facts to be kept, the record is the best evidence of the facts and, primarily, none other is admissible. . . .

"The authority to borrow the money and issue the bonds was devolved on the board of directors, but before they could exercise the authority they would have to order an election to ascertain the will of the voters. The board of directors was the organization through which the whole machinery of the law was to operate. The board was required by law to keep a record of its proceedings. [Sec. 7042, R. S. 1879.] That was a public record and to it we must, primarily, look to ascertain what action the board of school directors took in this matter."

Coming to the case in hand, respondent's return alleges, among other things, the following: (1) that the records of the school district do not show that a petition requesting the submission of a proposition to organize the common school district into a town school district was ever submitted to the board of directors as required by Section 9326, Revised Statutes 1929, (2) that the records of the district do not show that the action the board did take was pursuant to a petition of qualified voters and resident taxpayers as provided in said Section 9326, (3) that the records of the district show that the board did not direct that a proposition to organize the district into a town school district be submitted to the voters at the annual meeting but on the contrary by order instructed the clerk "to post the annual notices also the proposition of consolidation of the school district for the annual meeting," (4) that the records of the district do not show that the vote taken at the annual meeting was by ballot as required by Section 9326, Revised Statutes 1929, and (5) that relator has not produced and is unable to produce the original or a copy of the notice of election, the form of ballot used at said election, or the petition of resident taxpayers requesting the submission of the proposition at said election.

The facts alleged in the return are admitted by relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings. It appears from respondent's return that the minutes of the school board show that the board instructed the clerk to post notices of the annual meeting and include therein the proposition of consolidation of the school district. The records kept by the board do not show the contents of the notice which was given, and neither the notice nor a copy thereof is in the possession of the board. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, we will presume that the clerk performed his official duty and gave the notice which the board instructed him to give -- that is -- a notice submitting the proposition of consolidation of the school district. Such a notice would not authorize the voters...