State v. Gordon

Decision Date17 November 1914
Docket NumberNo. 18348.,18348.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. CLARK et al. v. GORDON, State Auditor.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

En Banc. Original mandamus proceeding by the State, on relation of S. J. Clark and others, against John P. Gordon, State Auditor. Peremptory writ issued.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus, instituted in this court by the relators, the directors of consolidated school district No. 1, of Davies county, against John P. Gordon, state auditor, to compel him to register and certify certain bonds of the district issued by it under section 10777, R. S. 1909. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the pleadings, the proper formation of the district, the election of the directors, or the regularity of the issuance of the bonds.

The sole questions here presented by respondent challenge the constitutionality of the act of the Legislature of 1913 (Acts 1913, pp. 721 to 725, under which the school district was organized). Said act provides for the organization of consolidated schools and rural high schools, and provides state aid for such schools, with an emergency clause. The act consists of nine sections, and are found in the Acts of 1913 on pages 721 to 725, and it reads as follows:

"Section 1. Consolidated District for Elementary and High School May Be Formed. — The qualified voters of any community in Missouri may organize a consolidated school district for the purpose of maintaining both elementary schools and a high school as hereinafter provided. When such new district is formed it shall be know as consolidated district No. ____ of ____ county, and all the laws applicable to the organization and government of town and city school districts, as provided in article IV, chapter 106 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1909, shall be applicable to districts organized under the provisions of this act.

"Sec. 2. Consolidated District — Area and Enumeration of. — No consolidated district shall be formed under the provisions of this act unless it contains an area of at least twelve square miles or has an enumeration of at least two hundred children of school age: Provided, that no district formed under the provisions of this act shall include within its territory any town or city district that at the time of the formation of said consolidated district has, by the last enumeration, two hundred children of school age.

"Sec. 3. Petition to Form Consolidated District Filed with Whom — Duties of County School Superintendent — Meeting — Organization of. — When the resident citizens of any community desire to form a consolidated district, a petition signed by at least twenty-five qualified voters of said community shall be filed with the county superintendent of public schools. On receipt of said petition, it shall be the duty of the county superintendent to visit said community and investigate the needs of the community and determine the exact boundaries of the proposed consolidated district. In determining these boundaries, he shall so locate the boundary lines as will in his judgment form the best possible consolidated district, having due regard also to the welfare of adjoining districts. The county superintendent of schools shall call a special meeting of all the qualified voters of the proposed consolidated district for considering the question of consolidation. He shall make this call by posting within the proposed district ten notices in public places, stating the place, time and purpose of such meeting. At least fifteen days notice shall be given and the meeting shall commence at two o'clock p. m. on the date set. The county superintendent shall also post within said proposed district five plats of the proposed consolidated district at least fifteen days prior to the date of the special meeting. These plats and notices shall be posted within thirty days after the filing of the petition. The county superintendent shall file a copy of the petition and of the plat with the county clerk and shall send or take one plat to the special meeting. The special meeting shall be called to order by the county superintendent of schools or some one deputized by him to call said meeting to order. The meeting shall then elect a chairman and a secretary and proceed in accordance with section 10865, R. S. 1909. The proceedings of this meeting shall be certified by the chairman and the secretary to the county clerk or clerks and also to the county superintendent or superintendents of schools of all the counties affected. If the proposed consolidated district includes territory lying in two or more counties, the petition herein provided for shall be filed with the county superintendent of that county in which the majority of the petitioners reside. The county superintendent shall proceed as above set forth and in addition shall file a copy of the petition and of the plat with the county clerk of each county from which territory is proposed to be taken.

"Sec. 4. Transportation — May Be Voted on. — The question of transportation of pupils may be voted upon at the special meeting above provided for, if notice is given that such a vote will be taken. If transportation is not provided for in any school district formed under the provisions of this act, it shall then be the duty of the board of directors to maintain an elementary school within two and one-half miles by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • State ex rel. Field v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1932
    ...out those public duties; they are expended for state purposes. Hence, these provisions of the Constitution have no bearing here (State v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631). These sections seek the same general end as Sec. 47, Art. IV; State v. St. Louis, 1 S.W. (2d) 1021-1026. (4) The Kansas City police......
  • State v. Ward
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1931
    ... ... the subject is single and if it is sufficiently expressed in ... the title, the statute is valid. Southard v. Short, ... 320 Mo. 932; State ex rel. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21; ... Forgrave v. County, 282 Mo. 599; State ex rel ... v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631; Elting v. Hickman, 172 ... Mo. 237. The constitutional provision requires the title to ... contain the general object of the act, but need not descend ... to details. State ex inf. v. Imhoff, 291 Mo. 603, 238 S.W ... 122; State v. Distilling Co., 236 Mo. 219. It is ... ...
  • Fahey v. Hackmann
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1922
    ...the act clearly expressing therein the subject thereof. Coffev v. Carthage, 200 Mo. 616; Nally v. Home Ins. Co., 250 Mo. 452; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631; Booth v. Scott, 205 S.W. 633; State ex rel. Gordon, 268 Mo. 735. (5) The act is now in full force and effect. Secs. 36, 44b, Ar......
  • Asel v. City of Jefferson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1921
    ...M. Rice and Vance J. Higgs for respondent. (1) The Act of 1919 does not violate Section 28 of Article 4 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 639; State ex rel. v. Williams, 232 Mo. 56, 75; State v. Brodnax, 228 Mo. 25, 53; State ex rel. v. Vandiver, 222 Mo. 206, 219; State ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT