State v. Ingram

• Citation: 298 S.W. 37
• Decision Date: 16 September 1927
• Docket Number: No. 29996.,29996.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2 et al. v. INGRAM, Superintendent of Schools, et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

298 S.W. 37

STATE ex rel. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2 et al. v. INGRAM, Superintendent of Schools, et al.

No. 29996.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

September 16, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.

Proceeding by the State, on the relation of Consolidated School District No. 2 and others, for certiorari to be directed to Annie Ingram, School Superintendent of Pike County, and others, members of a Board of Arbitrators selected by her which had sustained an appeal upon a proposition to change boundary lines of consolidated school districts. From a judgment quashing the writ of certiorari, the relators appeal. Cause transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.

A. J. Murphy, May & May, and Ras Pearson, all of Louisiana, Mo., for appellants.

Frank J. Duvall, of Clarksville, and Hostetter & Haley, of Bowling Green, for respondents.

LINDSAY, C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Pike county quashing a writ of certiorari previously issued, and directed to Annie Ingram, as county superintendent of schools of Pike county, and four members of the board of arbitrators selected by her which had sustained an appeal, upon a proposition to change boundary lines.

Consolidated school district No. 2 and consolidated school district No. 4 in Pike county were contiguous, and the question submitted and voted upon was "to change the boundary lines of said consolidated school district No. 4, by taking into and including in said consolidated school district No. 4 all the territory now included in said consolidated school district No. 2." There was a majority for the change in consolidated school district No. 4, but not a majority in consolidated school district No. 2.

There is discussion in the briefs of the question whether the board of arbitrators had jurisdiction, and whether the question submitted to the voters in the respective districts was one authorized by the statute. Sections 11201 and 11253, R. S. 1919.

The application for the writ was made in the name of consolidated school district No. 2, and the respondent by motion raised the question of authority of any one to make the said district No. 2 the relator. The ground was that, after the said election, and before filing the petition, there was no meeting of the board of directors of consolidated school district No. 2, and no action of the majority of them authorizing the application for the writ. The court, upon that theory permitted three individuals, who were or had been directors of consolidated school district No. 2, as citizens and taxpayers of that district, to be made parties, and permitted them to adopt as their own the allegations of the petition.

The question of the appellate jurisdiction of this court was not raised in the briefs, nor in oral argument. Nevertheless the question of jurisdiction cannot be ignored. There is not involved in the case the construction of any provision of the Constitution, nor is there involved "the title to any office under this state," nor is a "state officer" a party.

Annie Ingram, as county superintendent, is a party, but her title to the office is in no way involved. The office is one "under this state," and, if her title to the office were involved in the case, appellate jurisdiction would be vested in this court. State ex rel. v. Meek, 129 Mo. 431, 31 S. W. 913; State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 101 Mo. 499, 14 S. W. 726; State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 104 Mo. 619, 15 S. W. 850, 16 S. W. 502; State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 105 Mo. 103, 16 S. W. 695; State ex rel. v. Bus, 135 Mo. 325, 36 S. W. 636, 33 L. R. 616; State ex inf. v. Fasse, 189 Mo. 532, 88 S. W. 1; Ramsey v. Huck, 267 Mo. 333, 184 S. W. 966; State ex inf. v. McCann, 307 Mo. 455, 270 S. W. 688. She is not a "state officer," as those words are used in section 12 of article 6 of the Constitution. Those words refer only to officers whose official duties and functions are coextensive with the boundaries of the state. State ex rel v. Dillon, 90 Mo. 229, 2 S. W. 417; State ex rel. v. Spencer, 91 Mo. 206, 3 S. W. 410; State ex rel. v. Bus, 135 Mo. 325, 36 S. W. 636, 33 L. It. A. 616; State ex rel. v. Higgins, 144 Mo. 410, 46 S. W. 423; Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Blake, 242 Mo. 23, 145 S. W....