State v. Stouffer
| Decision Date | 07 July 1917 |
| Citation | 197 S.W. 248 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. RICHART v. STOUFFER et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Saline County; Samuel Davis, Judge.
Quo warranto by the state, on relation of R. Samuel Richart, against L. T. Stouffer and others. Judgment for defendants, and the relator appeals. Affirmed.
This is a proceeding by quo warranto instituted in the circuit court of Saline county against the defendants, as directors of consolidated school district No. 1 in said county, the purpose of which is to oust them from office.
The trial resulted in a judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiff duly appealed the cause to this court. As the pleadings in the case are not challenged and are sufficiently broad to embrace the legal propositions here presented for determination, they will, for the sake of brevity, be omitted from the statement of the case.
The facts of the case are, as appears from the statement of counsel for respondents, substantially as follows:
On February 26, 1916, 31 qualified voters in the community of Napton, Saline county, Mo., being qualified voters of school district No. 74, within which Napton is situated, and of school districts Nos. 60, 65, 73, 75, 86, and 92, filed with James L. Lynch, county superintendent of said county, a petition praying that he mark out the boundaries for a consolidated school district in their community and set the day and place for a special school meeting at which the qualified voters could "vote on the organization of said consolidated school district" and "to make and to post the plats of a consolidated district in their community," in accordance with the provisions of "An act to provide for the organization of consolidated * * * and rural high schools, and to provide state aid for such schools," enacted by the General Assembly of 1913. Laws 1913, p. 721.
Mr. Lynch visited the community, made investigation of its needs and of the needs and welfare of each district that would be affected by the formation of a consolidated district, determined and located its exact boundaries, and called a special meeting of all the qualified voters of the proposed consolidated district for the purpose of considering the question of consolidation, fixed the date for said special meeting for 2 o'clock of March 25, 1916, and the place as the schoolhouse in Napton, in existing district No. 74, gave notice of the time and place and purpose of said meeting by posting at ten public places within the proposed district ten printed and written notices, and gave notice of the boundaries of the proposed consolidated district by posting five plats thereof in as many public places within said proposed district, both said notices and plats being posted at least 15 days prior to said special meeting and within 30 days of the filing of said petition.
A copy of the notice is headed "Notice of Special Consolidated Meeting." In its body it recites:
That it is a notice "given to the qualified voters of proposed consolidated district No. 1" that "a special school meeting of said proposed consolidated district will be held at Napton schoolhouse on Saturday, the 25th day of March, 1916," and that "the following things will be considered: First, to organize a consolidated school district in this community with boundaries as laid out on the plats posted; second, to elect six school directors for said consolidated school district."
One of the plats was introduced in evidence, and is marked Exhibit F, and is attached at the end of this statement. It had written across its top this:
—then a blank space, then in large black printed letters these words:
"Plat of Proposed Rural High School No. One of Saline County."
These last words are printed twice on the plat, on the same alignment; and following them is the plat showing the outline of the proposed consolidated district by a heavy blue line.
The county superintendent filed a copy of the said petition and of said plat with the county clerk, and on said March 25th took a copy of said plat to the special meeting at Napton, and called said meeting to order at 2 o'clock p. m. The qualified voters who were present elected respondent L. T. Stouffer chairman, and Lester Connell secretary, and then proceeded to vote by ballot upon the proposition to organize said proposed consolidated district, and the election of school directors, being "these propositions given in the notice." The ballots were printed and distributed among the voters. Each ballot had printed on it the words "For consolidation" in one line and "Against consolidation" in another line, and the voter scratched out the line or words he did not approve. The voters after preparing their ballots advanced to a table in front of the chairman and deposited their ballots in a box sitting on the table. After they had all voted two tellers were appointed, who counted the ballots, the secretary keeping the tally. The votes were announced by the tellers, and the result of the election was announced to the meeting by the chairman. There were 42 "For consolidation" and 25 "Against consolidation."
The meeting then proceeded to elect six directors, and the respondents were elected, two of them for one year, two for two years, and two for three years. They met within four days at the Stock Bank in Napton and organized as a board by electing a president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer.
A memorandum of the proceedings of the meeting was kept, and a full minute of the proceedings was entered in a record and signed by the chairman and secretary on the day the meeting was held, and a typewritten copy thereof was made and signed by the chairman and secretary, and a certificate was thereto attached, and the same was filed with the county clerk on May 1, 1916.
Where the correctness of this statement is challenged by counsel for appellant, it will receive due consideration in the opinion, and such other facts as may be necessary for a proper presentation of any of the legal propositions involved will also be stated therein. Exhibit F, before mentioned, is as follows:
A. R. James, Harvey & Bellamy, Virgil V. Huff, and Robert M. Reynolds, all of Marshall, for appellant. Duggins & Duggins, of Marshall, and Perry S. Rader, of Jefferson City, for respondents.
WOODSON, J. (after stating the facts as above).
I. A foreword: The claim of the right of ouster presented against the defendants is not predicated upon any disqualification of theirs to hold the office, but is based solely upon the ground that said consolidated school district No. 1 of which they were elected directors was not legally organized.
It is first insisted by counsel for appellant that the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed because the county superintendent of public schools of Saline county did not visit the community petitioning for an organization of the district and make an investigation of the needs of the community, as required by the laws of Missouri. Laws 1913, § 3, p. 722.
That this statute must be substantially complied with there can be no question, but the question of compliance is by the statute left to the sound judgment of the superintendent.
This question came before division No. 2 of this court in the case of State ex rel. v. Wright, 194 S. W. 35, not officially reported, and it was there held that under said statute authorizing the county superintendent of public schools to fix the boundaries of consolidated school districts so as in his judgment to form the best possible consolidated district, with due regard for the welfare of the joining districts, the measure of judgment and the quantum of due regard are left to the official discretion of the superintendent. Independent of the foregoing, counsel are laboring under a misapprehension of fact regarding the conduct of and investigation made by the superintendent of the community and needs of the community desiring to organize the district. He testified unequivocally that he resided in the neighborhood and went over the territory and examined it, took into consideration the number of square miles required to constitute a consolidated district, the size of and financial ability of the districts out of which the consolidated district was to be carved in order to ascertain how much territory each could give up and not necessarily cripple it, that he found some of them much larger and wealthier than others, and that he took from each just as little territory as possible, and made the consolidated district of legal size, and that when he had completed his estimates he had only about a quarter of a section of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. City of Memphis v. Hackman
... ... 541, 128 S.W. 33.] Here the statute simply prescribes ... [202 S.W. 15] ... a certain form of ballot, but does not declare what results ... will follow if it is not used. The statute, therefore, may be ... reasonably held to be directory. In State ex rel. v ... Stouffer, 197 S.W. 248, the ballots used did not conform ... to the requirements of the statute, but, as in the case at ... bar, simply provided that a certain form of ballot should be ... used without prescribing that none other should be counted ... That statute was held to be directory. Woodson, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Brickey v. Nolte
... ... No. 6 of Jackson County v ... Shawhan, 273 S.W. 182. (7) A school district in Missouri ... is a public corporation. State ex rel. v. Whittle, ... 333 Mo. 705, 63 S.W.2d 100; City of Edina v. School Dist ... of Edina, 305 Mo. 452, 267 S.W. 112; State ex rel ... Richart v. Stouffer, 197 S.W. 248. (8) Directors of a ... corporation occupy a fiduciary relationship to the corporate ... body. Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Corp. v. American ... Taxicabs, 344 Mo. 1200, 130 S.W.2d 601; Bromschwig ... v. Carthage Marble & White Lime Co., 334 Mo. 319, 66 ... S.W.2d 889; Clubb v ... ...
-
State ex rel. Consol. School Dist. No. 8 of Pemiscot County v. Smith
...etc., v. Andrae, 216 Mo. 617, 116 S.W. 561; State ex inf. Caranhan, etc., v. Jones et al., 266 Mo. 191, 181 S.W. 50; State ex rel. Richart v. Stouffer (Mo.), 197 S.W. 248; School District Oakland v. School District of Joplin, 340 Mo. 779, 102 S.W.2d 909.] It has also been held to be the gen......
-
School Dist. of Oakland v. School Dist. of Joplin
...v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 641, 170 S.W. 892; State ex rel. O'Connell v. Board of St. L. Pub. Schools, 112 Mo. 218, 20 S.W. 484; State ex rel. Richart v. Stouffer, 197 S.W. 248; Heller v. Stremmel, 52 Mo. 312; State ex rel. Bilby v. Brooks, 249 S.W. 75; San Bernardino Co. v. Railroad Co., 70 Pac. 7......