State v. Gardner

• Citation: 204 S.W.2d 319
• Decision Date: 10 September 1947
• Docket Number: No. 6737.,6737.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SMITH et al. v. GARDNER et al.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

204 S.W.2d 319

STATE ex rel. SMITH et al. v. GARDNER et al.

No. 6737.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

September 10, 1947.

"Not to be published in State Reports".

Original proceeding in mandamus by the State of Missouri, at the relation of Curtis Smith and others, members of the Board of Directors of Consolidated School District No. 3 of St. Clair County, Mo., and another, against Paul Gardner and another, board of directors, Ashworth District No. 79, and others, to compel respondents to turn over to relators the money and property held by respondents as officers of their respective common school districts. On relators' motion to strike out the return and for issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus.

Motion to strike return sustained and peremptory writ issued.

Haymes and Dickey, of Springfield, for relators.

Lee Crook, of Osceola, and Herman Pufahl, of Bolivar, for respondents.

VANDEVENTER Judge.

On the 18th day of August, 1947, relators filed in this court a petition for a writ of mandamus. That petition, in brief, alleged that Consolidated School District No. 3 of St. Clair County, Missouri, was a consolidated school district organized under the laws of this state and that relators, Curtis Smith, C. B. Corwin, Gordon Worthington, E. D. Brown, E. L. Hunter and Fred Meredith constituted the Board of Directors of said District. That the respondents were directors of certain former common school districts which had become a part of the Consolidated District; that the Consolidated District was composed of what had formerly been 13 common school districts of St. Clair County. That on the 30th day of June, 1947, it became the duty of the respondents to turn over to relators all property, money on hand, books and papers formerly belonging to each of the common school districts; that seven districts had performed this duty but that six of them had failed and refused to do so, although proper demand had been made upon them. The petition then set forth the amount of money each of the six districts had on deposit in the office of the Treasurer of St. Clair County. It was further alleged that it was the duty of the relators to employ teachers, secure adequate housing accommodations, purchase for the transportation of pupils the necessary busses, buy school supplies and perform other innumerable duties and functions enjoined by law; and that the failure of the districts to turn over the money and property hindered and delayed the relators in preparation for the 1947-1948 term of school and the performance of their other duties. Relators prayed for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to turn over to them the money and property of their respective common school districts.

An alternative writ of mandamus was issued by this court to which respondents collectively filed a return. In the return, they admitted that they were members of the last Board of Directors of their respective common school districts and denied the legal existence of Consolidated School District No. 3 and further denied that the relators constituted the Board of Directors of said district. They alleged that the district had not been properly organized and that the individual relators were not legally elected directors thereof. In designating the matters which they claimed rendered the organization of the district invalid, they stated that no proper petition had ever been filed with the County Superintendent, that he had never visited the community, neither did he investigate the needs and determine the boundaries of the proposed school district; that no legal notices or plats were ever posted; no proper boundaries designated, no legal notice of election given, that fraudulent representations were made to the voters as to what the results would be if the Consolidated District was not organized, that at the meeting at which the election was held, the school house was filled with persons known to be in favor of consolidation; that those against it were prevented from entering the school house; that fraud was perpetrated in the election of a chairman of the meeting, that legal voters were prevented by the chairman from voting, either upon the organization of said meeting or the question of consolidation; that persons desiring to oppose the consolidation were not permitted to vote, that in some of the 13 districts, no notice of the election was given and information was withheld from the voters and that by virtue of all these things, there was no legal organization of the Consolidated District and no legal election of the relators as officials.

It was asserted that the...