State v. Scott

• Decision Date: 16 March 1925
• Docket Number: No. 24257.,24257.
• Citation: 270 S.W. 382
• Parties: STATE ex inf. PULLEY, Pros. Atty., ex rel. HARRINGTON et al., v. SCOW et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

270 S.W. 382

STATE ex inf. PULLEY, Pros. Atty., ex rel. HARRINGTON et al.,

v.

SCOW et al.

No. 24257.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 16, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; A. M. Tibbels, Judge.

Proceeding in nature of quo warranto by the State of Missouri, on the information of Frank L. Pulley, Prosecuting Attorney within and for the County of Clinton, at the relation of William R. Harrington and others, against John B. Scott and others. Judgment for respondents, and relators appeal. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

John A. Cross and Pross T. Cross, both of Lathrop, and R. H. Musser, of Plattsburg, for appellants.

W.S. Herndon and Daniel H. Frost, both of Plattsburg, for respondents.

LINDSAY, C.

An information in the nature of a quo warranto was filed on June 4, 1921, in the circuit court of Clinton county, by the then prosecuting attorney of that county, by leave of court obtained, and at the relation of certain taxpayers and citizens of the school districts hereinafter mentioned, which, after alleging the existence on April 3, 1917, of the school district of Lathrop and of common school districts Nos. 44 and 45, charged that respondents were "acting and using illegally the offices and franchises as school directors" of "Lathrop school district," and were claiming without any legal right the offices of "directors of school districts Nos. 44 and 45, and of said school district of Lathrop," all in Clinton county, which offices it was charged were not warranted by law, but were usurped by respondents. The information alleged that on April 3, 1917, the school district of Lathrop had within it more than 200 children of school age, and that districts Nos. 44 and 45 were duly organized and existing as common school districts. It was further alleged that on April 3, 1917, "at the annual school meeting in said three school districts, a proposition was wrongfully and illegally submitted to and adopted by the voters of said three districts, to change and extend the boundary lines of said school district of Lathrop so as to include therein all the territory and lands in common school districts Nos. 44 and 45, and thereby unlawfully and illegally consolidate said three districts in one district known as Lathrop school district." Although the information alleges that the proposition voted upon and adopted on April 3, 1917, was one to "change and extend the boundary lines of the school district of Lathrop so as to include therein" the lands and territory of districts 44 and 45, the relators contend, and emphasize the contention, that what was then done was an attempt to form a consolidated school district, and apparently attached some significance to the fact that the school district of Lathrop is designated as "Lathrop school district," in the petition on which the elections were held. It is conceded that the school district of Lathrop had more than 200 children of school age on April 3, 1917, and was a city district; Lathrop being a city of the fourth class.

The answer or return to the writ denied that the persons named as relators had such interest in the matters alleged as to make them proper parties to prosecute the action; admitted the submission and adoption of the proposition to extend boundary lines; denied that it was illegally submitted and adopted; set forth the presentation of the petition signed by ten qualified voters of said three school districts, the causing of notice of the submission to be given in the three districts by posting in at least five public places in districts 44 and 45, and publication in the only newspaper in the school district of Lathrop, for 15 days prior to April 3, 1917, the date of said annual meetings; the casting of the vote of a majority of the qualified voters of each of said districts in favor of said proposition; certification of the result thereof to the clerks of said districts; certification by them to the superintendent of public schools and to the county clerk of Clinton county and action therein and acquiescence therein; that thereafter the board of education of the school district of Lathrop levied taxes upon all property-within the boundary lines as changed, and caused enumeration of all children therein of school age to be taken; that all tax moneys and moneys from the state were paid to the treasurer of the school district of Lathrop; that said districts 44 and 45 turned over all of their property to said school district of Lathrop and wholly ceased to exist or function as school districts; that two of respondents were residents of the territory taken in by the extension, respondent Rogers of the territory of which district 44 was composed, and respondent Trice of the territory formerly included in district 45, chosen by the electors of school district of Lathrop as now existing, and as successors to others formerly constituting said board of education of the school district of Lathrop. The answer further pleaded laches of relators, and that they were estopped from prosecuting the action.

The reply pleaded that the attempted change of boundary lines so as to include the territory of all three districts was unlawful and contrary to the forms of law governing the formation of consolidated school districts, and the law governing the annexation of districts to city or town school districts, and prayed that respondents be ousted. The cause was submitted to the court and no declarations of law were asked or given.

A consolidated school district cannot be formed so as to include within it a city or town school district which contains, at the time, 200 or more children of school age. This is clear from the provisions of sections 11255 and 11258, R. S. 1919, in force at the time the elections were held. Under section 11255 a consolidated school district can be formed having within it a village school district having less than 200 children of school age, and under section 11258 it is provided that no such district shall be formed under the provisions of article 4 covering consolidated school districts which shall include within its territory any town or city district, that at the time of the formation of such consolidated school district has 200 children of school age. The respondents concede that the school district of Lathrop and districts Nos. 44 and 45 could not form a consolidated school district. Their contention is that there was no attempt to form a consolidated school district. Consolidated school districts constitute a distinct class of school districts, under the statute; as much so, as do common school districts, or city, or town school districts. Two methods of forming consolidated school districts are provided. The first is under section 11255, which authorizes the formation of a consolidated school district, out of three or more common school districts, or out of a village district having less than 200 children of school age, together with two or more adjoining districts. This contemplates the consolidation of several entire districts, and this, it is provided, may be done in accordance with the provisions of section 11201. State ex inf. Thompson v. Scott, 304 Mo. 664, 264 S. W. 369. This is not done under the provision for changing boundary lines, but for forming a new district, under section 11201. Such district "shall organize at a special meeting within fifteen days after the formation thereof."

The other consolidated school district authorized to be formed is one by the qualified voters of a community. This is formed under the provisions of the act of 1913 (sections 11257, 11258, 11259, R. S. 1919). The initiative step is a petition signed by at least 25 qualified voters of the community, filed with the county superintendent of public schools, who shall determine the exact boundaries of the proposed consolidated district. Under either method there is the formation of a new district, which becomes a corporate entity, and as such displaces and supersedes over all the territory embraced therein, the common school districts, or village district and common school districts, of which the consolidated district is composed. Neither of such things was attempted to be done in the proceedings here under consideration. What was attempted was to extend the boundary lines of the school district of Lathrop so as to include within it all of the territory within districts Nos. 44 and 45, and to maintain unbroken the corporate existence of the school district of Lathrop.

The respondents ground their defense of the proceedings had upon the provisions of section 11201, R. S. 1919 (section 10837, It. S. 1909). The proposition adopted by the voters of each of the three districts pursuant to the petition, and the notices given, was expressly stated to be a proposition for changing district boundary lines under the provisions of section 10837, R. S. 1909, and that "the boundary lines of the Lathrop school district" (then embracing certain lands described) "shall be extended so as include all the territory and lands, in district No. 44" (describing the lands in district 44), "and in district No. 45" (describing said lands), "which change will make the boundary lines of Lathrop school district include territory and lands as follows" (describing all of said lands). It is to be observed that in the petition, notices, etc., the city district was called "Lathrop school district." It was so designated, as the existing district whose boundary lines were to be extended, and so designated as the district, to be, after its boundary lines should be extended. Its proper designation under the statute, section 11236, R. S. 1919, was the "school district of Lathrop." But the mere fact that the petitioners and others in the proceedings to extend its boundary lines called it "Lathrop school district" is no evidence of a purpose to organize a new district, a consolidated district—under a new name. It was, and remained, the "school district of...