State v. Hall

• Decision Date: 14 November 1899
• Citation: 53 S.W. 1062,152 Mo. 234
• Parties: STATE ex rel. FRISBY v. HALL et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

53 S.W. 1062

152 Mo. 234

STATE ex rel. FRISBY v. HALL et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 14, 1899.

SUPREME COURT — TITLE TO OFFICE — JURISDICTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE SCHOOL DIRECTOR — CHANGE OF DISTRICT — MEETING — PETITION AND NOTICE — DETACHING TERRITORY — OBLITERATION OF DISTRICT.

1. Const. art. 6, § 12, provides that the supreme court shall have jurisdiction in all cases "involving the title to any office under this state." Held that, since the office of school director is one held under authority derived from the state, the supreme court has jurisdiction of a proceeding to determine the title to such office.

2. Under Rev. St. 1889, § 7972, conferring authority on voters of a school district to change existing school districts at their annual meetings on petition and notice, a part of an existing district cannot be voted out of it at a special meeting with or without petition and notice, or at an annual meeting without a petition and notice.

3. Under Rev. St. 1889, § 7972, as amended by Act April 8, 1895, which provides that the territory of an existing school district shall not be so encroached on as to leave it with a population of less than 20 children of school age, a school district cannot cut off from itself a territory containing less than 20 school children.

4. Nor does the fact that an adjoining school district subsequently attempted to annex such detached territory validate such action.

5. Under Rev. St. 1889, § 7972, authorizing the formation of a new school district composed of two or more entire districts or parts of two or more districts, or to divide one district to form two, or to change the boundary lines of two or more districts, the voters of three existing districts may form two new districts out of the three, so as to obliterate one of them.

Appeal from circuit court, Harrison county; E. J. Broaddus, Judge.

Quo warranto by the state, on the relation of Ezra H. Frisby, against Ellis Hall and others. From a judgment in favor of respondents, relator appeals. Affirmed.

This is a proceeding in quo warranto by which the title of respondents to the office of directors of the school district No. 6, township 63, range 29, in Harrison county, is challenged. The facts of the case, about which there is no dispute, are as follows: On April 6, 1897, and prior thereto, three of the school districts in the township above named, viz. districts 5, 6, and 7, were composed of the twelve sections (with a small exception), which form the two southern tiers of sections of the township; that is, sections 25 to 36, inclusive. At the regular annual meetings held in those districts on the date above named a proposition was duly submitted to the voters to form two new districts out of the territory embraced in the three. Upon the vote being taken, the result was that districts 5 and 6 voted against, and district 7 in favor of, the proposition, whereupon the matter was referred to the county commissioners, as provided in section 7972, Rev. St. 1889, who decided in favor of the proposition, and formed the two proposed new districts, making two districts of six sections each in the place of the former three districts of four sections each; one of the new districts being designated as "No. 5," and the other as "No. 6." The respondents in this suit were duly elected directors in the new district No. 6, qualified as such, entered into office, and are discharging the duties thereof. It is admitted upon the record in this case that respondents are entitled to the office they hold if the two new districts in question were formed in accordance with the law, and it is admitted they were formed according to law unless their organization was rendered invalid in consequence of one or both of the following facts, viz.: First. Adjoining the old district No. 6 on the south was district No. 1 of township 62, range 29. At a special meeting held in that district in July, 1896, a vote was taken whereby the north half of lot No. 2 of section 3 in that township, containing 40 acres, which was then a part of the district, was voted out of it, — that is to say, it was so voted out if it was lawful for the meeting to vote it out; and at a special meeting of the directors of the old district No. 6, held in August following, that 40 acres was voted into No. 6, — that is to say, the directors of No. 6 voted to do so, — and thereafter the 40 acres was treated as a part of No. 6, and the children residing therein, being less than 20 in number, attended the No. 6 school. In the formation of the two new school districts above mentioned that 40-acre tract was ignored. It was not included in the proposition voted on at the annual meeting of April 6, 1897, nor taken into consideration by the county commissioner, and forms no part of either of the two new districts. Relator contends that thus leaving the children residing on that 40 acres unprovided for violates that provision of section 7972, Rev. St. 1889, which forbids the formation of a new district containing less than 20 children, or a change of boundaries whereby a district is so reduced as to contain less than that number. Second. Under this scheme of organization one of the old districts is blotted out. New district No. 5 embraces all the territory of old No. 5 and the east half of old No. 6, and new district No. 6 embraces the west half of old No. 6 and all of old No. 7, which relator insists is unlawful, for two reasons: (1) Because, as he contends, under the guise of forming new districts a district cannot be blotted out, and its existence as a corporate entity terminated; (2) he contends that a new district cannot be formed by taking all of the territory of one and part of another. Upon the trial in the circuit court there was a finding and judgment for the respondents, from which, after due course, the relator took an appeal to the Kansas City court of appeals, and, after the record was lodged there, that court, upon looking into it, discovered that it involved the title to an office under this state, and there-upon made an order transferring the cause to this court, and it is now here for review on the relator's appeal.

A. F. Woodruff and A. S. Cumming, for appellant. Sallee & Crossan, J. C. Wilson, and C. H. S. Goodman, for respondents.

VALLIANT, J. (after stating the facts).

Although neither party has challenged the correctness of the judgment of the Kansas City court of appeals on the point of jurisdiction mentioned, yet we deem it proper to note the point, and say in regard to it that the ruling of the Kansas City court of appeals was entirely correct. Section 12, art. 6, of the constitution confers on this court jurisdiction "in cases involving * * * the title to any office under this state; * * * in cases where * * * any state officer is a party." Two classes of officers are here referred to, viz. all those who hold office under the state and state officers. All state officers are embraced in the first class, but all embraced in the first class are not state officers. We have had occasion in former adjudications to construe these two forms of expression occurring in this clause of the constitution, and have held that the terms "office under the state," as there used, meant an office...