State v. Job

• Decision Date: 11 June 1907
• Citation: 103 S.W. 493,205 Mo. 1
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ROSE et al. v. JOB et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

103 S.W. 493

205 Mo. 1

STATE ex rel. ROSE et al. v. JOB et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 11, 1907.

1. QUO WARRANTO—ANSWER AND RETURN— RIGHT TO AMEND.

In quo warranto by the state, on the relation of private citizens, to oust school district directors, it was proper to permit the respondents to file an amended answer and return before trial.

2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS—CONSOLIDATION OF DISTRICTS—APPEAL—ARBITRATORS —OATHS.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 9742 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463], providing for an appeal to arbitrators in a proceeding to consolidate school districts, it is unnecessary that they or the witnesses testifying before them be sworn.

3. SAME—SUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE.

In a proceeding under Rev. St. 1899, § 9742 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463], to consolidate school districts, notices of annual school meetings, specifying that, among the things to be proposed and considered, would be "to consolidate two and a part districts into one," "to decide in favor or against any change in boundary lines," etc., to which were attached copies of petitions to the clerks to post notices of a desired change in boundary lines specified by metes and bounds, gave sufficient information to the voters as to the propositions upon which they were called upon to vote.

4. SAME — SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION FOR CHANGE.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 9742 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463], providing that, when it is desired to consolidate school districts, the clerk of each district shall, upon receiving a petition desiring the change, and signed by "ten qualified voters residing in any district affected thereby," post a notice, etc., it is not necessary that the petition be signed by 10 voters residing in "each" district affected.

5. SAME—DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT PROPERTY.

Under the express terms of Rev. St. 1899, § 9744 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4466], notices of a desired consolidation of school districts need only embrace disposition of the property in the old districts, when it is made known that the new district intends to surrender to the old district all claim thereon for its share of the property.

6. SAME — CONCLUSIVENESS OF ARBITRATORS' JUDGMENT.

Where a board of arbitration, appointed under Rev. St. 1899, § 9742 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463], in a proceeding to consolidate school districts, acquired jurisdiction to determine the questions submitted to them, their judgment, in the absence of a showing that it was procured by fraud, is conclusive, and quo warranto will not lie to review error in their judgment.

7. SAME—JURISDICTION.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 9742 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4463], providing for the consolidation of school districts, a board of arbitration acquired jurisdiction to determine the disputes submitted to them, where the voters of the district had ample information as to the propositions to be voted upon, an election was held in the districts, all of the districts affected did not vote in favor of a change, by reason of the election there was a difference or dispute to be settled, and the matters were referred to the county commissioner, and he took appropriate steps for their determination by arbitration.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cass County; Wm. L. Jarrott, Judge.

Quo warranto by the state of Missouri, on the relation of G. A. Rose and others, against M. B. Job and others. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment for defendants. Affirmed.

Each of the notices referred to in the third subdivision of the opinion read substantially as follows:

"Annual School Meeting.

"Notice is hereby given to the qualified voters of district No. [describing it by number, township, and range], county of Cass, state of Missouri, that the annual school meeting of said district will be held on Tuesday, the 7th day of April, 1903, commencing at two o'clock p. m., and among other things specified by law, the following will be proposed and considered: * * * To consolidate two and a part districts into one. To decide in favor or against any change in boundary lines.

                  "[District Clerk's Signature and Date.]
                             "Cleveland, Mo., Feb. 9, 1903
                

"Petition for Change of Boundary Lines for Consolidation.

"We, the undersigned qualified voters of district No. [describing it by number, township, and range] county of Cass, state of Missouri, desire the following changes in district boundary lines, as follows: [Description by metes and bounds]—and hereby petition you to post a notice of such desired change in at least five public places in your district 15 days prior to the time of the annual school meeting."

This cause is now pending before this court upon appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Cass county, Mo., in favor of the respondents. This proceeding is one in which the extraordinary writ of quo warranto is invoked to test the legality of the organization of a school district, and to oust certain alleged officials from the exercise of certain duties, functions, and privileges under and by virtue of such illegal organization of the school district. To fully appreciate this controversy, it is essential that we reproduce the pleadings. Relators, on the 7th day of September, 1903, filed in the circuit court of Cass county a petition, which, omitting formal parts, is as follows:

"Relators state that they are, and were at the times hereinafter mentioned, resident taxpayers, freeholders, and voters of the school district No. 5, in township 45 of range 33, of Cass county, Mo., and that they prosecute their action for themselves and other resident taxpayers and voters of said school district, and that they together constitute a majority of the voters and taxpayers of said school district. That relators C. H. Vonvolkenburg and Andrew Alderson, and defendant Harvey Corey are the duly elected and qualified directors of such school district No. 5. That on the first Tuesday in April 1903, as the law directs, there was had a regular annual school meeting at the proper place and in said district, by the voters thereof, who, after assembling at the schoolhouse in said district, organized by electing Frank Ink as chairman and G. A. Rose as secretary of said meeting. That at said meeting there was an attempted or pretended submission to the voters there assembled of a proposition to consolidate said district with district No. 3, township 45, range 33, and a portion of district No. 3, township 44, range 33, so as to make one district out of two and a part of the third district. That in the pretended or attempted submission of said question, and in the preliminary steps thereto, parties asking therefor, in their attempt to lay out by metes and bounds the proposed line of division and consolidation, wrongfully and incorrectly left out of a portion of said district No. 3, township 44, range 33, as then existing, having less than the required area of land containing therein less than twenty (20) children of school age, and entitled to the benefits of the public schools. That after the pretended submission of said question of consolidation, when it was learned that the proposition had failed to carry, there was an attempt to appeal from the decision of the voters voting at said election upon said proposition, to the Honorable A. A. Wirt, county school commissioner of Cass county, Mo. And in furtherance of said attempt there was sent up for the consideration of said commissioner no such records of the several school district's meetings as would authorize said school commissioner to recognize an appeal. Your relators aver that, upon the record made by said several school districts in the petition for change and notices therefor, at said annual meetings the school commissioner has no authority or right, nor was he under any duty or obligation, to act upon or consider said appeal or attempted appeal, for the reason that said petition, notice, and record, if any produced or made, showed no authority or right in said annual meeting to vote upon a proposition to consolidate said two and part districts, no right to vote for attaching and detaching portions of said district No. 3, township 44, range 33, nor that the law had been complied with in the attempted submission of said question, nor that the school commissioner had any jurisdiction to try and determine the question attempted to be presented to him. That notwithstanding the lack of authority or right, and the want of jurisdiction in the same, the school commissioner took up and considered and attempted to pass upon and formulate a judgment in the matter, and consolidated said two and a part districts in a manner not petitioned for, and along lines which no notice was properly posted and on which the several districts did not vote. That the judgment of said commissioner and his pretended board of arbitrators was delivered to the district clerks of all said districts and is as follows:

                    "`Harrisonville, Mo., April 18, 1903
                

"`Board of arbitrators, composed of A. A. Wirt, county school commissioner of Cass county, and W. S. Bryan, G. M. Summers, A. B. Bohon, and M. E. Halcomb, four disinterested citizens, resident taxpayers of Cass county, Mo., appointed by A. A. Wirt, school commissioner, as provided by the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1899, after the annual meeting of P. R. Brown, W. G. Edwards, C. C. Young, M. B. Job, J. E. Ellis, C. S. Shaw, H. C. Hall, D. W. McClarnon, T. T. Maxwell, W. H. Edelen, R. E. Laffoon, A. C. Jones, and H. W. Williams, and others, petitioners, voters, and resident taxpayers of school districts mentioned to be affected by the proposition voted upon and appealed from, met at Harrisonville, Mo., on the 18th day of April, 1903, at 1 o'clock at the circuit court room in Cass county courthouse, by agreement of appellants and the objecting citizens and their attorneys. The board of arbitrators was called to order by A. A. Wirt, county school commissioner, and the board of arbitrators then took up the matter of appeal from the specified petition and notices...