State v. Curtright

• Decision Date: 12 July 1918
• Docket Number: No. 15747.,15747.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CONSOL. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2, SHELBY COUNTY, v. CURTRIGHT.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

205 S.W. 248

STATE ex rel. CONSOL. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2, SHELBY COUNTY, v. CURTRIGHT.

No. 15747.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Argued and Submitted June 3, 1918.

Opinion Filed July 12, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; Wm. T. Ragland, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of the Consolidated School District No. 2, Shelby County, against M. K. Curtright, County Clerk of Monroe County. From a judgment for defendant, relator appeals. Affirmed.

Ben. F. Glahn, of Palmyra, for appellant. Boyd & Barnes, of Paris, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by mandamus against the county clerk of Monroe county, the action being in the name of the state at the relation of consolidated school district No. 2 of Shelby county. The petition states that on May 13, 1915, a petition was signed by more than 25 qualified voters of Shelby county, residing in the vicinity of Hunneywell, which petition was filed in the office of the superintendent of schools of Shelby county, and recited that the persons so signing the same, being qualified voters of districts Nos. 24 and 42 of Monroe county, and 62 of Marion county, and the special school district of Hunneywell, in Shelby county, being adjoining school districts, in accordance with the act approved March 14, 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 721), petitioned the county superintendent of Shelby county to visit the community, investigate its need, make and post plats of the proposed consolidated district, post notices of a special school meeting to vote on the organization of the proposed school district, and that the majority of the voters who signed the petition, and the majority of the petitioners, resided in Shelby county, and that this petition was filed in the office of the superintendent of schools of Shelby county on or about May 13, 1913; that on receipt of this petition the county superintendent of Shelby county visited the community, investigated the needs and determined the exact boundary of the proposed consolidated district; that after visiting the community and determining the boundary of the consolidated district, and within 30 days after the filing of the petition in the office of the county superintendent, the county superintendent called a special meeting of the qualified voters of the proposed consolidated district for considering the question of consolidation, which call was made by posting within the proposed consolidated district 10 notices in public places, stating the place, time, and purpose of the meeting, and that the meeting would be held in the opera house at Hunneywell, on June 5, 1915, at 2 o'clock p. m.; that the call was further made by posting five plats of the proposed consolidated district within 30 days after the filing of the petition, both said plats and said notices being so posted at least 15 days prior to the meeting, and thereupon the county superintendent filed, in the office of the county clerk of Shelby county "on the ____ day of ____, 1915," a copy of the petition and of the plat of the proposed consolidated district, and also filed a copy of the petition and a copy of the plat in the office of the county clerk of Marion, as well as in the office of the county clerk of Monroe county, on May 22, 1915; that thereupon, on June 5, 1915, a special meeting of the qualified voters of the proposed consolidated district was held at the hour and place designated in the notices, and the county superintendent of Shelby county sent a copy of the plat to the meeting, which was called to order by a person. especially deputized by the county superintendent, and the meeting elected a chairman and secretary; that the plat of the proposed consolidated district was exhibited to the voters present at the meeting, who voted upon the question of the organization of the proposed consolidated district, 136 votes being in favor, and 31 against; that the meeting then proceeded to the election of six directors, electing them separately, and resulted in the election of six persons named for the respective terms of 1, 2, and 3 years; that a record was kept of the proceedings of the meeting and delivered to the board of education and the directors of the consolidated school district, to be entered upon its records by the clerk thereof; that thereafter the chairman and secretary of the special meeting certified the proceedings to the county clerks of Shelby, Marion, and Monroe counties, and to the county superintendents of schools of these counties, which certified record was filed in the office of the clerks of the several counties and in the office of the county superintendent of schools on days, the dates of which are blank in the petition; that in the consolidation of the new district No. 2 of Shelby county there was not included in the territory any town or city district that, at the time of the formation of the consolidated district, had by the last school enumeration 200 children of school age, and that it has an area of more than 12 square miles; that all the acts above referred to were legally performed by the proper officers, within the time and manner required by law, and upon the filing of the record of the special meeting in the office of the county clerks and of the county school superintendents, the district became, and ever since has been a duly organized consolidated school district; that one Duer is the clerk, one Moss the vice president, and one Graves, president; that before May 15, 1915, the estimate required by law to be filed in the county clerk's office, of the amount of funds necessary to sustain the school for the time required by law, or for the time decided upon at the annual meeting, together with such other amounts for meeting bonded indebtedness and incidental expenses, had been legally ordered, and was made and filed by the president and clerk in the office of the county clerks of the respective counties on days named.

The petition then sets out the description by section numbers of the lands within the boundary of the consolidated school district, and in the several counties of Shelby, Marion, and Monroe, those in Monroe being described as "the north three-fourths of section 17, all of sections 18 and 19, all in township 56, of range 8 west, and all of sections 13, 14, 15, 22, 23 and 24, and the east half of the east half of section 16, and the east half of the east half of section 21, all in township 56, range 9 west;" those situated in Marion and Shelby counties being also described; that upon the filing of the estimate before referred to, it became the duty of the defendant, as county clerk of Monroe county, to ascertain and extend taxes on the tax books of that county against the property, real and personal, within the limits of the consolidated district for the year 1916, within that county, but that the defendant had failed and refused, and still fails and refuses, to comply with the law and his duty in that respect. Mandamus is asked to compel him to carry out this duty.

On the filing of this petition an alternative writ was issued.

The defendant answered, denying specifically that the acts set out in the petition had been done, and averring that uniform plats had not been posted and filed in the several counties, and that it was pretended to include lands in Monroe county which were not shown on the plat, and denies the validity of the election and of the filing of valid estimates.

There was a reply to this.

A hearing before the court resulted in the dissolution of the temporary mandamus before then ordered, and a denial of the prayer of the petition for the writ. From this the relator has appealed.

It was attempted by the proof offered by the plaintiff, relator,...