State v. Miller

• Citation: 113 Mo. App. 665,88 S.W. 637
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, TP. 51, R. 17, HOWARD AND CHARITON COUNTIES, et al. v. MILLER, County Clerk.
• Decision Date: 26 June 1905
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

88 S.W. 637

113 Mo. App. 665.

STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, TP. 51, R. 17, HOWARD AND CHARITON COUNTIES, et al. v. MILLER, County Clerk.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 26, 1905.

1. SCHOOL DISTRICTS — ORGANIZATION—REVIEW —COLLATERAL ATTACK.

Where a school district had been recognized as an existing district by both state and county for several years, the validity of its organization could not be attacked in a collateral proceeding to compel a county clerk to extend certain taxes over the land therein, to which proceeding the school district was not a party.

2. SAME—MANDAMUS.

Where a school district, though irregularly organized, had existed and been recognized both by the state and county as an existing district for many years, a taxpayer was barred by laches from obtaining mandamus to contest the validity of its organization.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chariton County; John P. Butler, Judge.

Mandamus by the state, on the relation of School District No. 1 of Township 51, Range 17, of Howard and Chariton counties, and others, against Herbert H. Miller, clerk of the county court of Chariton county. From a judgment denying the writ, relators appeal. Affirmed.

T. Shackelford and E. W. Henry, for appellants. R. B. Caples and Crawley & West, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

The relator school district seeks to compel the respondent county clerk of Chariton county to assess and extend the taxes on property in certain territory claimed by relator, as was certified by it on the 12th of May, 1903. The object of relator is to subject certain territory to taxation as a part of said district. The trial court refused a peremptory mandamus, and relator appealed.

It appears that prior to 1896 the territory composing the relator district was partly in Chariton and partly in Howard counties. The territory now in dispute lies wholly in the former county. In 1896 the territory now in dispute, with some not in dispute, organized into a separate district known as District No. 2. The relator attacks the regularity and legality of the proceeding whereby such District No. 2 was attempted to be organized. But it appears in the case that such District No. 2 did in fact exist from 1896 down to the present time; that it had officers, built a schoolhouse, carried on a school, and received its share of the school taxes during that time.

We will concede (and thereby rid the case of much detail of statement) that District No. 2 was irregularly organized. But the fact remains that for many years it was an existing district operating under the laws and filling all the functions of a school district, and that it was recognized by both state and county, the former in the apportionment of school funds, and the latter in taxation and other matters arising from the relation of county and school district affairs. This proceeding is not a direct attack upon the existence of the district. It is merely seeking to compel the performance of an alleged ministerial duty by the respondent, as county clerk, to extend taxes for school purposes for the relator over and upon...