State v. Denny

• Decision Date: 13 May 1902
• Citation: 72 S.W. 467,94 Mo. App. 559
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 v. DENNY et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

72 S.W. 467

94 Mo. App. 559

STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 v. DENNY et al.

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

May 13, 1902.

SCHOOL DISTRICTS — CHANGE OF BOUNDARIES — ARBITRATION — RECORD — DECISION.

1. Rev. St. 1899, § 9742, expressly provides that, in changing the boundary lines between two established school districts, one district shall not encroach on another simply for the acquisition of territory.

2. Under Rev. St. 1899, § 9742, providing for the appointment of arbitrators to consider the necessity for a change in the boundary lines between school districts, and render a decision thereon, requiring the decision to be transmitted to the clerks of the districts interested, and making it the duty of the clerks to enter the decision on the records of the districts, it is not necessary for the board of arbitrators formed thereunder, or for the superintendent of schools, to keep a record of the proceedings of such board.

3. Where it does not appear from the proceedings of a board of arbitrators, appointed to consider the necessity for a change of boundary between two school districts, that they ever met and considered the matter submitted, or found that the proposed change was necessary, the proceedings are void on their face.

Appeal from circuit court, St. Louis county; John W. McElhinney, Judge.

Certiorari by the state, on the relation of School District No. 1, to R. B. Denny and others, to review proceedings changing the boundary lines between certain school districts. From a judgment setting aside the proceedings, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This proceeding originated between School District No. 1 and School District No. 4, township 45, range 3 E., St. Louis county, for the purpose of changing the boundary lines between the two districts. Prior to the annual meeting in 1900, 10 resident taxpayers and voters of District No. 4 filed their petition with the clerks of District No. 1 and District No. 4, requesting each of them to post notices for the annual meeting, which notices contained a proposition to take from District No. 1, and add to District No. 4, lands described in the petition. The clerks of the respective districts posted the notices containing the proposition, and an accurate description of the lands proposed to be taken from District No. 1 and attached to District No. 4. These notices were posted 15 days before the annual school election in April, 1900. At the April election, District No. 4 voted unanimously for the change in the boundary line as set out in the notices, and District No. 1 voted against the change. Within the time required by law, the directors of District No. 4 filed their appeal with R. B. Denny, superintendent of schools in St. Louis county, and with their appeal filed a copy of the petition theretofore filed with the clerk of District No. 4, and a copy of the notices. Mr. Denny, as such superintendent, summoned four unprejudiced taxpaying citizens of St. Louis county to act as a board of arbitrators. The return to the writ is as follows: "Now comes R. B. Denny, for himself and the other respondents herein, and makes return to the writ of certiorari heretofore issued in the above-entitled cause by the circuit court of St. Louis county, and says that on the 5th day of April, 1900, within five days after the school election in April, 1900, the board of directors of School District No. 4, township 45, range 3 east, filed with him, as school superintendent, an appeal in the matter of changing the boundary line between School District No. 1, township 45, range 3 east, and School District No. 4, township 45, range 3 east, together with a notice put up fifteen days before the annual school election, on April 3, 1900, as the law directs, which petition and notice are hereby attached as part of the record in said cause; that after the receipt of said petition he appointed four disinterested men, resident taxpayers of the county, to wit, C. H. Evans, T. J. Quinn, J. B. Greensfelder, and J. Will Andrae, as a board of arbitration; that within fifteen days thereafter the said board of arbitration, together with relator, met in the office of the school superintendent, your relator, at the courthouse in the town of Clayton, to consider said appeal; that both School District No. 1, township 45, range 3 east, and School District No. 4, township 45, range 3 east, were notified of said meeting, and then and there appeared both in person by their boards of directors and by attorneys, and then and there presented evidence as to the necessity of said change of boundary line, and, after fully considering the necessity of said change, said board of arbitration, together with your relator, determined that a change of boundary line between said districts was a necessity, and then and there entered the order hereto attached; and your relator on the twenty-fourth day of April, 1900, mailed to each district interested a copy of the order making said change." Respondent filed the following motion to quash the return: "Now comes the said relator, and moves the court to quash the...