State v. Claxton
| Decision Date | 23 February 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 17941.,17941. |
| Citation | 173 S.W. 1049 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. WHELCHEL et al. v. CLAXTON et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wright County; C. H. Skinker, Judge.
Proceeding in the nature of quo warranto by the State, on relation of M. N. Whelchel and others, against W. C. Claxton and others. Judgment for defendants, and relators appeal. Reversed and remanded, with direction.
This is a proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto instituted by the prosecuting attorney of Wright county, Mo., in the name of the state, at the relation of M. N. Whelchel et al., to oust the defendants from exercising the functions of school directors of school district No. 63 of said county. Trial was had in the circuit court of Wright county, resulting in a judgment for the defendants. Thereupon an appeal was duly perfected to this court. The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. From the stipulated facts it appears that relators are resident taxpaying citizens of school district No. 63 in Wright county, Mo., and that on December 2, 1912, the time of the institution of the suit, the defendants were performing the offices of school directors of said school district. It further appears that for the school year beginning July 1, 1911, and ending June 30, 1912, a levy of 40 cents on the $100 valuation was made, which, together with public funds and cash on hands, provided sufficient funds to enable said district to have eight months' school in said school year, but that only five months' school was had in said district during said year. It was further admitted that the failure to have said eight months' school in said year did not result from irregularity or void proceedings had for that purpose.
E. B. Garner, Pros. Atty., of Hartville (E. H. Farnsworth, of Mountain Grove, and Lamar, Lamar & Lamar, of Houston, of counsel), for appellants. Perry T. Allen, of Springfield, for respondents.
WILLIAMS, C. (after stating the facts as above).
It is contended by appellant that under the facts shown, the failure of said school district to have eight months' school in the school year beginning July 1, 1911, caused said district to lapse "as a corporate body, and the territory theretofore embraced within such lapsed district" to become as unorganized territory, etc., under the provisions of section 10776, R. S. 1909. And, further, that since said school district had lapsed as a corporate body, the respondents were unlawfully attempting to exercise the functions of school directors, and that the court erred in failing to enter judgment of ouster against said respondents. The decision of the case involves the construction of said section 10776. That section provides that:
"Whenever any school district in this state * * * shall fail or refuse, for the period of one year, to provide for an eight months' school in such year, provided a levy of forty cents on the one hundred dollars' valuation, together with the public funds and cash on hand, will enable them to have so long a term, the same shall be deemed to have lapsed as a corporate body, and the territory theretofore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. School Dist. No. 118, 17471.
...or void proceedings had for that purpose." In construing section 10776, Rev. St. 1909, the Supreme Court, in State ex rel. v. Claxton, 263 Mo. 701, 173 S. W. 1049, discussed the question here presented, and held that to provide an eight months' school, under that section, is not merely to l......
- State v. Shuster
-
State v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 2
...upon by relator is wholly inapplicable, for giving that statute its full scope and effect, as was done in the case of State ex rel. v. Claxton, 263 Mo. 701, 173 S. W. 1049, it does not appear in the present case, as it did appear in that case, that the 40-cent levy and the public funds and ......