State v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 04 March 1919
• Docket Number: No. 21030.,21030.
• Citation: 209 S.W. 938,277 Mo. 458
• Parties: STATE ex inf. KILLAM, Pros. Atty., ex rel. CLARE et al. v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF LINCOLN COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

209 S.W. 938

277 Mo. 458

STATE ex inf. KILLAM, Pros. Atty., ex rel. CLARE et al.

v.

CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF LINCOLN COUNTY.

No. 21030.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 4, 1919.

Motion for Rehearing Denied March 17, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County; Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.

Information in nature of quo warranto, filed for the State by D. E. Killam, Prosecuting Attorney, at the relation of Claud Clare and others, against Consolidated School District No. 1 of Lincoln County. Judgment for defendant, and relators appeal. Affirmed.

D. E. Killam, Pros. Atty., and Dudley & Williams, all of Troy, for appellants.

Sutton & Huston, of Troy, for respondent.

WHITE, C.

The prosecuting attorney of Lincoln county filed in the circuit court of that county an information in the nature of a quo warranto at the relation of 18 taxpaying citizens of school district No. 37 of Lincoln county, against consolidated school district No. 1 of Lincoln county, the purpose of which was to oust the respondent from exercising authority over the territory of district No. 37.

On trial of the cause the circuit court found the issues in favor of the respondent, consolidated school district No. 1, and the relators appealed.

The petition of relators alleged that they were resident taxpayers within and patrons of school district No. 37, a legally and duly organized school district; that consolidated school district go. 1, without any warrant or authority, exercised jurisdiction and authority of a consolidated school district over the lands and property contained in school district No. 37, and was attempting to fix the rate of taxes for school purposes and attempting to exercise control over the school as a part of consolidated district No. 1, and had abolished, or attempted to abolish, the school within the said school district No. 37.

It is further alleged that school district No. 1 undertook to procure the annexation of school district No. 37, and procured a special election and school meeting to be held in district No. 37 for the purpose; but that no proper or legal election was held; and at the election so illegally held a majority of the qualified voters of said district who voted did not vote in favor of the annexation of school district No. 37 to consolidated school district No. 1; that the secretary of said special school district No. 37 failed to certify a copy of the result of said special election with a copy of the record of said special school meeting to the school board of said district No. 37, and to the said school board of said consolidated district No. 1; that all the proceedings by which it was attempted to annex said school district No. 37 to said consolidated school district were illegal, insufficient, and without warrant or authority of the law. The petition then prayed that school district No. 1 be ordered to show upon what authority it claims to exercise its privileges, and that it be excluded from all corporate rights, privileges, land franchises over district No. 37 and its territory.

For answer and return respondent sets up that a part of the territory of school district No. 37 of Lincoln county had been incorporated in district No. 1, and that thereafter the remaining inhabitants of school district No. 37, on the 19th of March, 1907, held a special school meeting at the schoolhouse in said district No. 37 for the purpose of voting upon the annexation of said school district No. 37 to consolidated school district No. 1; that a proper petition was presented to the board, requesting that such meeting be called and proper notice given of such meeting; that at such meeting a majority of the voters of said district No. 37 voted in favor of such annexation; that the secretary of that meeting duly certified that fact, with a copy of the record, to the board of directors of school district No. 37 and the board of directors of consolidated school district No. 1, and that thereupon the board of directors of said consolidated school district No. 1 met and voted in favor of such annexation, and affirmed such annexation by proper order and resolution, and that thereupon said district No. 37 became a part of consolidated district No. 1.

The return further alleges that all the relators, immediately after the holding of said special meeting by the board of directors of said consolidated school district No. 1 made statements to the board of said school district to" the effect that the election resulted in favor of annexation, requesting that the board of said district No. 1 receive and accept school district No. 37, conferring such annexation. That the school board of said consolidated school district No. 1 relied upon such statements and representations, and that the board of directors of district No. 37 and officers of said district fully recognized such annexation as legal and valid, and turned over the records and property of said school district No. 37 to the board of consolidated district No. 1; that thereafter all the qualified voters within the territory of said school district No. 37 participated in the annual school election held in said consolidated school district in April, 1917, and at said school election voted upon all the propositions submitted to the voters of said district, and that one of the relators, Claud Clare by name, who resided within the annexed territory, was elected as one of the directors of school district No. 1, and qualified as such, and voted for the election of teachers in said district, and voted upon matters passed upon by said board, all with the acquiescence, concurrence, and consent of the relators herein, and of all the qualified voters and adult inhabitants of said annexed territory; that upon the confirmation of the annexation of said territory, the board of directors of said school district No. 37 disbanded, with the acquiescence, consent, and concurrence of all the relators and all the adult inhabitants and qualified voters of said annexed territory, and have made no effort to carry on any school in said territory or to levy any taxes for the purpose of conducting such school, or to employ any teacher for that purpose, or to in any way act or operate as a school district or corporate body, but, on the contrary, have concurred in the disorganization of said territory as a school district, and acceded to the annexation thereof to said consolidated district, wherefore respondents claim that the relators are estopped to deny the validity of the annexation of the said territory or the validity of the proceedings relating thereto.

The judgment of the trial court recited that the territory of school district No. 37 as it existed at the time of the meeting on March 19, 1917, is now lawfully incorporated and annexed to said consolidated school district No. 1, and is a part of said district, and that said district is entitled to exercise the privileges, rights, and franchises over the territory of district No. 37. The respondent was discharged.

On the trial the respondent, consolidated, school district No. 1, undertook the burden of establishing the facts stated in its return and answer. It introduced George 1. Mudd, a member of the board of directors and district clerk of consolidated school district No. 1. He testified that the board of directors of school district No. 1 met on March 23, 1917, and accepted the certificate of election held in district No. 37 on March 19th, previous; he identified the record showing a special meeting on March 23d: the board of directors consisted of six members, and only four were present at that meeting. This record revealed the acceptance of the result of the election x..n district No. 37, showing the annexation.

The respondent then offered the certificate of the clerk of district No. 37 and the records of the proceeding of said district, showing the holding of the special election in that district on March 19th for the purpose of voting on the proposition to annex to school district No. 1, and showing that the result in said election resulted in 14 for such annexation and 13 against. The respondent also offered in evidence the petition to the board of directors of school district No. 37 asking said election.

It was further shown that at the annual school meeting of the consolidated school district No. 1, held in April, 1907, several of relators and other voters in the territory of school district No. 37 were present and participated, voted on the election of two directors, and voted on the length of the school term and what school buildings should be used, the rate of taxation, and the term of school. Claud Clare, former director of district No. 37 was elected as a director of consolidated school district No. 1.

The minutes of meetings of the board of directors was introduced, showing that Claud Clare participated in such meetings after the annual school meeting. The respondent then rested its, case. Thereupon relators introduced Claud Clare. He testified that at the special meeting held in district No. 37 on March 19th, the votes showed 14 for annexation and 15 against, and the record was so made and the minutes were so written. These minutes were lost or destroyed, and four days later the minutes certified to the board of directors of consolidated school district No. 1 showed 14 for and 13 against. Other evidence was offered of that result. As to just the reason for this change there is some confusion in the testimony, but no dispute as to the fact. It seems that immediately after the election on March 19th, the people living in school district No. 37 became afraid that they would be annexed to what is termed the "Millwood District," another adjacent and consolidated district, to which they all objected, and in order to avoid that calamity they cast about for a method to reverse their vote and procure annexation to consolidated district No. 1. It is disputed as to whether some persons in district No. 1...