State v. Stone

• Decision Date: 14 November 1899
• Citation: 152 Mo. 202,53 S.W. 1069
• Parties: STATE ex rel. FRISBY v. STONE et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

53 S.W. 1069

152 Mo. 202

STATE ex rel. FRISBY v. STONE et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 14, 1899.

COURTS — APPELLATE JURISDICTION — TRANSFER OF CAUSE — QUO WARRANTO — TITLE TO OFFICE — SCHOOL DISTRICTS — NEW DISTRICT — FORMATION.

1. An appeal from the circuit court to the Kansas City court of appeals in quo warranto proceedings brought to determine the title of defendants to the office of school directors was properly transferred to the supreme court by the court of appeals.

2. Rev. St. 1889, § 7972, provides that when it is deemed necessary to form a new school district, composed of parts of two or more districts, the question shall be voted on by the voters of such districts at their annual meetings, and if the assent to such change be given at all the annual meetings of both districts, or of the parts of a district to be divided, each part voting separately, the change shall take effect from such date; but if a part of a district to be divided, or one or more of the districts affected, vote in favor of such change, and the remaining part of the district to be divided, or one or more of the districts affected, vote against such change, the matter may be referred to the county commissioner for his decision. Held that, where each of two districts affected by a proposed change at their annual meeting voted against the proposition, their action was conclusive, and the fact that the voters of the territory which it was proposed to detach from one of the districts subsequently met and voted in favor of the proposition afforded no basis for action by the county commissioner.

Appeal from circuit court, Harrison county; P. C. Stepp, Judge.

Quo warranto by the state, on the relation of E. H. Frisby, against Robert Stone and another. From a judgment of the circuit court in favor of plaintiff, defendants appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals, and that court transferred the case to the supreme court. Judgment affirmed.

Sallee & Crossan, D. J. Heaston, and J. C. Wilson, for appellants. A. F. Woodruff and A. S. Cummings, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J.

Quo warranto to oust defendants from the office of school directors of school district No. 8, township 64, range 29, of Harrison county. Plaintiff obtained judgment in the circuit court, and defendants appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals; and that court transferred the case to this court, on the ground that the title to an office under this state is involved, and hence this court has jurisdiction, under section 12 of article 6 of the constitution. This was a proper order. State v. Bus, 135 Mo., loc. cit. 334, 36 S. W. 638. This court exercised jurisdiction in a similar case. State v. Rose, 84 Mo. 198.

The solution of the question whether there is any such legal organization as school district No. 8, township 64, range 29, of Harrison county, determines the right of the defendants to the office involved in this case. Prior to April 6, 1897, township 64 contained, inter alia, school districts 1 and 2. The former was composed of sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14; and the latter, of sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Proper preliminary steps were taken prior to the annual meetings in school districts 1 and 2, held on April 6, 1897, to create a new school district, to be known as "School District No. 8," by taking sections 3 and 10 from district No. 1, and 4 and 9 from district No. 2, and thus form the proposed new district No. 8. At the regular annual meetings of districts 1 and 2, the proposed segregation and consolidation was submitted to the voters of each of such districts, and voted upon separately, and the scheme was defeated by a majority vote of each district. Thereafter a majority of the voters of sections 3 and 10 got together and voted in favor of the scheme. Thereupon 15 of the citizens and qualified voters of the proposed new school district appealed to the county school commissioner, who decided in favor of the scheme, established school district No. 8, and gave proper notices thereof. The defendants were afterwards duly elected directors of said district No. 8. If district No. 8 is a legally constituted school district, the defendants are its directors. The crucial question, therefore, is as to the legal existence of district No. 8. and the true construction of section 7972, Rev. St. 1889, determines the question involved herein. The portion of that section material to this case is as follows: "When it is deemed necessary to form a new district, composed of two or more entire districts, or of parts of two or more districts, or to divide one district to form two new districts from the territory therein, or to change the boundary lines of two or more districts, it shall be the duty of the district clerk of each district affected, upon the reception of a petition desiring such change, and signed by ten qualified voters residing in any district affected thereby, to post a notice of such desired change in at least five public places in each district interested fifteen days prior to the time of the annual meeting; and the voters when assembled, shall decide such question by a majority vote of those who vote upon such proposition. If the assent to such change be given by all the annual meetings of the various districts thus voting, or of the parts of a district to be divided, each part voting separately, the district or districts shall be deemed formed or the boundary lines thus changed from that date; but if a part of a district to be divided, or one or more of the districts affected, vote in favor of such change, and the remaining part of the district to be divided, or one or more of the districts affected, vote against such change, the matter may be referred to the county commissioner for his decision," etc. This section provides for four contingencies: (1) to form a new district by consolidating two or more entire districts; (2) to form a new district by carving out parts from two or more districts; (3) to form a new district by dividing one district into two parts; and (4) to change the boundary lines of two or more districts.

The history of the evolution of the law into its present shape throws light upon the intention of the lawmakers, and aids in arriving at the true meaning of section 7972. Provision was made by section 7023, Rev. St. 1879, for the formation of new school districts by taking portions of two or more existing districts, and for changing the boundary lines of any district. A notice was required to be posted in three public places, in each district interested, 20 days prior to the time of the annual meeting. It was further prescribed that: "And the voters, when assembled, shall decide such question by a majority vote. If the assent to such formation be given by all the annual meetings of the various districts thus voting, the district shall be deemed formed, or the boundary lines thus changed from that date. But if a part of the districts affected vote in favor of and a part against such change the matter shall be referred to the county commissioner for final decision," etc. So the formation of a new district by taking parts from two or more existing districts was required to be settled by a majority vote of the voters of the existing districts, when assembled in annual meeting. If assent be given "by all the annual meetings of the various districts thus voting," the district was deemed formed. But, "if a part of the districts [note the plural number] affected vote in favor of and a part against such change, the matter shall be referred to the county commissioner for final decision." Thus, it will be seen that the proposition was required to be submitted to the voters of each district to be affected, at an annual meeting, and the majority...