State v. Board of Education

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation41 S.W. 924,141 Mo. 45
PartiesSTATE ex rel. LYNN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.
Decision Date17 July 1897

In banc. Mandamus by the state of Missouri, at the relation and to the use of Andrew B. Lynn, against the board of education of the city of St. Louis and others. Writ denied.

W. C. Marshall, for relator. R. E. Rombauer, for respondents.

ROBINSON, J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus to compel the board of education of the city of St. Louis, and the members thereof, to audit relator's claim for services as one of the clerks at a special election held in the city of St. Louis, on the 18th day of May, 1897, to select members of said board of education, under the act creating said board, passed and approved on the 23d day of March, 1897, known as the "Civic Federation Bill," and to appropriate, out of the funds belonging to said board of education, sufficient money to pay same. The relator was regularly appointed as one of the clerks of the election in precinct No. 7, ward 28, of the city of St. Louis, on the 23d day of September, 1896, for a term ending 60 days prior to the next general election, pursuant to the provisions of the act approved May 31, 1895, relating to elections, and, as such clerk, he served at the election for members of the board of education on the 18th of May last, and is entitled to the sum of $15 for such services, which have been properly certified to by the board of election commissioners of the city of St. Louis. About 2,600 other clerks and judges in the city of St. Louis are similarly situated. The board of election commissioners for the city of St. Louis, as required by law, held the election on the 18th day of May, 1897, and thereafter certified the costs to the respondents, and asked them to make the proper and necessary appropriation to pay the same, together with all other costs incurred at said election. The board of education refused to do so, on the ground that it was not within its power, under the act of 1897, creating said board, to comply with the request, and that such election expenses were subject alone to be audited by the fiscal officers of the city of St. Louis, and payable out of the city treasury, under the law in force when said expenses were incurred. To determine whether the expense of this election is to be paid out of the treasury of the board of education, or out of the city treasury, this proceeding has been instituted, both the city of St. Louis and the board of education denying the liability.

There is no controversy touching any facts. The respondents have entered their appearance, and, in their return, say that the writ is insufficient in law, and does not state any cause against respondents or either of them. The contention of the relator is that, inasmuch as the constitution and laws of this state authorize a separate taxation for school purposes, the costs of this election should be paid out of the school fund, and not out of revenues raised for municipal purposes only, and, further, that the legislature has no constitutional power to require the city of St. Louis to pay the expenses of this school election. If the last contention is not well made, then the answer to relator's first contention is simply that the legislature has thought proper to provide for the expenses of the election of the board of education of the city of St. Louis out of a fund and by a way not approved by his judgment, if we read aright the act creating the respondent board of education, and the election law of 1895, to which it refers in section 6 thereof. Just what constitutional provision would be violated if it is determined that the legislature has provided that the expenses incurred by the election of the directors of the board of education of the city of St. Louis shall be defrayed by the city of St. Louis out of its general revenue is not named or designated by the relator; but, be that as it may, the constitutional power of the legislature to authorize by law a tax to be levied by the municipal authorities upon property within its limits to pay the expenses of all elections held therein ought not now to be a question in this state, since the ruling of this court in the case of State v. Owsley, 122 Mo. 68, 26 S. W. 659. In that case, this court, construing section 1011, Rev. St. 1889, containing a similar provision to section 91 of the present election law, upon which respondent relies to throw the costs of this election upon the city, held that the legislature had the constitutional right to require the city to pay the expenses of holding all elections, whether national, state, or municipal, held in such city, out of revenue raised by the city. The legislature has control over the revenue of the city as over that of the county and state, and can direct by law that the expenses of elections held in a municipality, for the election of school directors, or for local purposes, shall be paid out of the treasury of the municipality from taxes levied and collected by municipal authorities. If, then, the question as to the constitutional power of the legislature to require the city of St. Louis to pay the expenses of this election out of its treasury, raised, but not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Owen v. Baer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1900
    ... ... of the act of 1893 is as follows: "An act concerning sewers and drains for cities in the state having special charters which now or hereafter contain more than 2,000 and less than 30,000 ... State v. Board of Education, 141 Mo. 45, 41 S. W. 924 ...         (9) A law applicable to cities of a ... ...
  • State ex rel. Zoolog. Board v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1928
    ... ... (a) It does not violate Section 1 or Section 10 of Article 10 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23. (b) It does not violate Sections 20 to 25 of Article 9 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Mo. & Kan. Tel. Co., 189 Mo. 83; State ex rel. v. Board of Education, 141 Mo. 45; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583; State ex rel. v. Owsley, 122 Mo. 78; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64; Peterson v. Railroad, 265 Mo. 462. (c) It does not violate Section 11 of Article 10 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Van Every, 75 Mo. 530; Brooke v. Schultz, 178 Mo. 222; State ... ...
  • State ex rel. Field v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1932
    ... 49 S.W.2d 74 ... STATE OF MISSOURI, at the relation of RUSSELL FIELD ET AL., Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri, Relators, ... BRYCE B. SMITH ET AL ... No. 31347 ... Supreme Court of Missouri, Court en ... [Ray Co. v. Bentley, 49 Mo. 236; State v. Board of Education" of City of St. Louis, 141 Mo. 45, 41 S.W. 924; State v. Field, 119 Mo. 593, 24 S.W. 752; State v. Owsley, 122 Mo. 68, 26 S.W. 659.]\" ...      \xC2" ... ...
  • State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1928
    ... ... Art. 19, chap. 91, R.S. 1899 (now Arts. 5, 6, chap. 60, R.S. 1919); State ex rel. Trustees v. Board of Finance, 53 N.J.L. 62. (2) Where a specific ministerial duty is imposed by law upon any officer, board or tribunal, with respect to the levy and ... State ex rel. v. Tel. Co., 189 Mo. 83; State ex rel. v. Owsley, 122 Mo. 78; State ex rel. v. Board of Education, 141 Mo. 45; State ex rel. v. Field, 119 Mo. 614; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583; State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 50; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 117 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT