State ex rel. School District No. 18, Township 51, Range 34, Platte County v. Sexton
| Decision Date | 21 November 1910 |
| Citation | 132 S.W. 11,151 Mo.App. 517 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 18, TOWNSHIP 51, RANGE 34, PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. F. SEXTON, School Commissioner, et al., Defendants in Error |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Platte Circuit Court.--Hon. Alonzo D. Burnes, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
John W Coots for plaintiff in error.
(1) The certificate or award of the board of arbitrators is the sole and only record of the proceedings of the board, and the court will exclude from consideration all other papers attached to and made a part of the return of respondents, for the reason that they form no part of the record. An award of arbitration is a judgment. School Dist. v. Hodgin, 180 Mo. 148; School Dist. v. Pace, 113 Mo.App. 134; State ex inf. v. Cummins, 114 Mo.App. 93; Sec. 9742, R. S 1899. (2) The award or judgment of the arbitrators is void upon its face, and shows that said board was not legally constituted, and had no jurisdiction to hear said alleged appeal. It nowhere appears in the award that the said arbitrators are "disinterested men and resident taxpayers" of Platte county, and this fact cannot be shown by any other paper or exhibit filed in the case, as they constitute no part of the record, and to permit any such evidence in support of the award would be to form an issue foreign to the objects to be attained by certiorari. School Dist. v. Pace, 113 Mo.App. 134; Railroad v. State Board Eq., 64 Mo. 303; State ex rel. v Smith, 173 Mo. 414; State ex rel. v. Woodson, 161 Mo. 452; State ex rel. v. Cauthorn, 40 Mo.App. 94; State ex rel. v. Wilson, 99 Mo.App. 675; Railroad v. Young, 96 Mo. 39; State ex rel. v. County Court, 66 Mo.App. 96. (3) The certificate, or award, of the arbitrators being the whole and only record in this case, wholly fails to show jurisdiction, and it is fundamental that however informal the proceedings of an inferior tribunal may be, the fact that it is such inferior tribunal makes it necessary that the record of its proceedings should show such facts as to give it jurisdiction. State ex rel. v. Wilson, 99 Mo.App. 680; State ex rel. v. County Court, 66 Mo.App. 96.
A. D. Gresham and Guy B. Park for defendants in error.
(1) The award of the arbitrators and papers attached thereto are valid upon their face and fully meet the requirements of the law. This case is almost identical with State ex rel. v. Andrae, which seems to have been the guide for the county commissioner and board. State ex rel. v. Andrae, 216 Mo. 617. The only difference in the two cases is that in the Andrae case a record was kept of the oath of the arbitrators; in the case at bar, a record was kept of the appointment of the arbitrators. Both show the necessary qualifications of the members of the board. Ibid. 635. (2) The county commissioner is a member of the board and his record of appointment, stating the qualifications of the arbitrators, is as much a part of the records of the board as is the finding. Sec. 9742, R. S. 1899. "He shall appoint four disinterested men, resident taxpayers of the county, who, together with himself, shall constitute a board of arbitration," etc. The Court in State ex rel. v. Wilson, 99 Mo.App. 675, recognized the record of appointment of board by the commissioner as a part of the record of the board. It was because the commissioner's record was defective that the court held the arbitrators had no jurisdiction. (3) None of the cases cited by plaintiff in error are similar in their facts to the case at hand. In none of them is the action of the commissioner of record or was it included in the return. In them it nowhere appears that the arbitrators possessed the necessary qualifications. (4) In cases of this kind, the court should not look for a strict and technical compliance with the statute. State ex rel. v. Job, 205 Mo. 34; State ex rel. v. Town of Westport, 116 Mo. 595.
This action originated in the circuit court of Platte county by writ of certiorari sued out by relator, School District No. 18, of that county. The proceedings which evoked the action relate to a proposed change of boundary between school districts numbered 17 and 18, by which one thousand acres of territory would be detached from the first named district and added to its neighbor's territory. Pursuant to the provisions of section 9742, Revised Statutes 1899 (now section 10837, Revised Statutes 1909), a petition for the change was filed, notices were posted and the question was voted on in both districts at the annual school meeting in April, 1909. District No. 17 voted in favor of the change and No. 18 against it. An appeal was made to the county school commissioner as directed by the statute (sec. 9742.) He appointed four commissioners who rendered the following decision in favor of the change:
This decision was transmitted to the clerks of the respective districts and its sufficiency is the sole ground of the attack made on the proceedings both in the circuit court and here. Relator's objection thus is stated in its brief:
The return filed by respondents to the writ disclosed that record was kept of all the proceedings and that in the record of the school superintendent was the following entry:
To continue reading
Request your trial