State v. Moreland

• Decision Date: 20 November 1916
• Docket Number: No. 1862.,1862.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. KING et al. v. MORELAND et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

189 S.W. 602

STATE ex rel. KING et al. v. MORELAND et al.

No. 1862.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 20, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; S. G. Thurman, Judge.

Certiorari by the State, on the relation of W. L. King and others, against A. C. Moreland and others, to quash proceedings had by defendants, the Superintendent of Schools of Bates County and four persons appointed by him, and composing with him a Board of Arbitrators, relative to the change of boundary lines between certain school districts in the county. From a judgment for relators, defendants appeal. Judgment affirmed.

C. A. Denton and Smith & Chastain, all of Butler, for appellants. Silvers & Silvers, of Butler, for respondents.

STURGIS, J.

This is a proceeding by certiorari against the superintendent of schools of Bates county and four persons appointed by him, and composing, with him, a board of arbitrators, and has for its object the quashing of certain proceedings had by such board relative to the change of boundary lines between certain school districts in said county. As we understand the controversy, a new district was desired to be formed under the provisions of section 10837, R. S. 1909, by changing the boundary lines and taking certain territory from each of three school districts of said county, to wit, district No. 111, district No. 112, and the city district of Rich Hill. Two other districts (Nos. 88 and 99) were drawn into the controversy (they being the ones on whose behalf this appeal is here) by reason of an attempt in the same proceeding to change the boundary lines between district No. 111 and the adjoining districts Nos. 88 and 99. These last districts are not interested in or affected by the formation of the new district, but as compensation to district No. 111 for loss of part of its territory to the new district the boundary lines of this district were sought to be so changed as to take territory from districts Nos. 88 and 99, and include same in district No. 111.

The writ of certiorari required the county school superintendent and members of the board of arbitration to certify to the circuit court for review all the proceedings pertaining to the change of boundary line between school district 111 and school district 99 and between school district 111 and school district 88. The county school superintendent made return, certifying as all the papers, files, and proceedings relative thereto: (1) The written petition for appeal from the vote on change of boundary; (2) a certificate as to the vote in the Rich Hill district, showing 333 votes for the change of boundary lines and 152 votes against such change; (3) a certificate as to the vote of district 112, showing a unanimous vote against the change; (4) a copy of the notice of the annual school election as posted in the Rich Hill district, giving notice that the proposed change of boundary lines would be submitted thereat; (5) the finding of the board of arbitrators in favor of all the changes as proposed. The circuit court, where the case was taken by change of venue, quashed the proceedings of the board of arbitrators so far as the same affected the boundary line between district 111 and district 88 and between district 111 and district 99.

It is claimed here that no sufficient appeal was taken from the vote of the districts just mentioned on this question so as to give the county superintendent jurisdiction and authority to appoint a board of arbitrators, or for such board to act and make a finding, and hence that such proceeding was void. Such petition for appeal reads as follows:

"We hereby appeal from the decision of the districts on the vote for change of boundary as proposed in the attached notice and ask that you appoint arbitrators to decide the question."

The notice referred to in this application for appeal is filed with the return in this case (No. 4, supra), and is, as stated, one of the copies of the notice of the annual school election posted in the Rich Hill district, and shows that the question of changing the boundary lines would be there submitted.

So far as the question now before us is concerned, there is nothing to show how any interested districts voted on this question, if any vote was taken. In the appeal and proceedings thereon it is shown in a manner that the Rich Hill district voted in favor of a change in the boundary lines, but that district was only interested (directly at least) in the boundary line between it and the new district, and not in the change now in controversy. So also district 112 is said to have voted against the change, but it likewise was only interested in the boundary between it and the new district. Neither of said districts were interested in or affected by (except indirectly and remotely) any change of boundary between district 111 and district 88 or between district 111 and district 99, which alone is in controversy here. It would seem, therefore, that the question of the change of boundary lines of districts Nos. 111, 112 and the Rich Hill district so as to form a new district from parts of those three was a distinct and independent matter from changing the boundary line between district No. 111...