State v. Morrison

• Citation: 201 S.W. 910
• Decision Date: 03 December 1917
• Docket Number: No. 12568.,12568.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MORRISON et al. v. SIMS et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

201 S.W. 910

STATE ex rel. MORRISON et al. v. SIMS et al.

No. 12568.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 3, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; A. D. Burnes, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Petition for writ of certiorari by the State, on relation of John Morrison and others, against Anna L. Sims and others. From judgment for respondents on the face of the petition and the records produced. under the order and writ issued by the court, relators appeal. Affirmed.

E. C. Hall, of Kansas City, and Frank B. Ellis, of Plattsburg, for appellants. R. H. Musser, of Plattsburg, Pross T. Cross, of Lathrop, and R. E. Culver, of St. Joseph, for respondents.

ELLISON, P. J.

This proceeding was instituted by petition for writ of certiorari directed to the county superintendent of public schools of Clinton county and the county clerk of that county, having for its object the quashing of the proceedings for the "formation and organization of consolidated school district No. 1 of Clinton county, Mo.," a small part of the territory being in Buchanan county. The respondents filed a motion in the trial court for judgment on the "face of the petition and records produced under the order and writ issued by the court," for the reason "that all the proceedings were regularly had and conform to the law." Relators likewise filed a motion for judgment quashing the proceeding establishing the consolidated district, for the reason that the record shows a number of things, enumerated by relators, which they allege rendered the establishment of the consolidated district illegal and void. The trial court sustained the former motion and overruled the latter, whereupon relators appealed.

Both the parties have assumed that the records and proceedings for the establishment of the district are to be considered in the disposition of their respective motions, and we will treat the case as they have. A decision as to respondents' motion, which was sustained by the trial court, will determine the case.

Relators' petition for the writ is made up almost entirely of their conclusions, instead of a specification of facts. Conclusions that this, that, and the other thing are insufficient, or improper, or void, or illegal, may be well enough as a statement connected with specifications, and they should be accompanied by allegations showing wherein, or why, the matters complained of were improper. If specifications were set out, it may be that others than relators would think there was nothing improper.

There is no doubt but that Anna L. Sims, as county school superintendent, had authority to organize the consolidated district under the laws of 1913, pp. 721-724, when proper proceedings were initiated. And as to these proceedings we find from the record that at least 25 voters of "a community" presented to the county superintendent of schools a petition for the establishment of a consolidated district. But it is said the petition was on three separate pieces of paper fastened together. As the total names were above the number required by law, the fact that there were three papers each identically worded does not affect the validity of it. It was doubtless done for convenience in getting signatures. State ex rel. v. Weeks, 38 Mo. App. 566; State v. Smith, 38 Mo. App. 618; State v. Hitchcock, 124 Mo. App. 101, 101 S. W. 117.

The fact that it was not specifically stated in the petition in what county the petitioners resided, or that a majority resided in Clinton county, did not render the petition void. It is dated, "Grayson, Mo., December 16, 1915," and states that the signers are qualified voters of certain school districts, naming them, "in accordance with the provisions of an act of the Forty-Seventh General Assembly, entitled, etc., do...