State v. The School Board of Tecumseh Rural High-School District No. 4

• Decision Date: 11 February 1922
• Docket Number: 23,937,23,936
• Citation: 110 Kan. 779,204 P. 742
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. Tinkham Veale, as County Attorney of Shawnee County, Appellant, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF TECUMSEH RURAL HIGH-SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4 et al., Appellees. THE STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. Tinkham Veale, as County Attorney of Shawnee County, Appellant, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF TECUMSEH RURAL HIGH-SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4 et al., Appellees
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

204 P. 742

110 Kan. 779

THE STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. Tinkham Veale, as County Attorney of Shawnee County, Appellant, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF TECUMSEH RURAL HIGH-SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4 et al., Appellees.

THE STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. Tinkham Veale, as County Attorney of Shawnee County, Appellant, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF TECUMSEH RURAL HIGH-SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4 et al., Appellees

Nos. 23,936, 23,937

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 11, 1922

Decided January, 1922

Appeals from Shawnee district court, division No. 1; JAMES A MCCLURE, judge.

Rulings affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. RURAL HIGH-SCHOOL DISTRICT--Evidence of Indebtedness--Precludes Its Disorganization. Under chapter 250 of the Laws of 1921, a certain note for rent under a lease which the rural high-school district of which the defendants were officers had issued, constituted evidence of indebtedness such as to preclude its disorganization.

2. SAME--Evidence of Indebtedness. A lease for a school room for a term of years did not constitute such evidence of indebtedness as indicated in paragraph one hereof, nor did certain teachers' contracts.

3. SAME--Disorganization of District--Statutes. The enactment of chapter 250 of the Laws of 1921 did not restrict disorganization of rural high-school districts to those organized under section 2 of such chapter.

4. SAME--Contracts--Presumption of Knowledge of Legislative Power. Those contracting with such high-school districts are presumed to know that the legislature may provide for the disorganization of such districts.

5. SAME--No Wrong Without a Remedy. Although no provision be made for the collection of debts incurred by such disorganized districts, it may be assumed that means will be found to sustain the maxim, no wrong without a remedy.

Tinkham Veale, county attorney, Ralph H. Gaw, assistant county attorney, J. B. Larimer, and W. Glenn Hamilton, both of Topeka, for the appellant.

J. J. Schenck, and C. P. Schenck, both of Topeka, for the appellees.

OPINION

WEST, J.:

These actions were brought by the state on the relation of the county attorney against the district board of Tecumseh rural high-school district No. 4, and its officers, the first to compel the defendants to pay off the indebtedness of the district and call an election for its disorganization, and the second, for an injunction against the defendants to prevent them from opening school in the district or performing any act or incurring any indebtedness on behalf of the district, except to call the election prayed for. Both were denied by the trial court and the plaintiff appeals.

The parties agreed upon certain facts from which it appears that the rural high-school district was organized in September, 1919, and on July 11, 1921, an enumeration of the legal electors was made showing 331, and on July 15, thereafter, a petition requesting an election to disorganize the district was filed and presented in due form. A majority of the board refused to call the election prayed for, giving as a reason an opinion from the county superintendent that the defendant district had outstanding warrants in the sum of $ 2,006 and owed teachers for services $ 378.33; that a building had been rented for five years at $ 20 a month and a note had been given for $ 1,200 for the rental not yet due; that teachers had been employed, contracts with them covering services amounting to $ 4,700.

The alternative writ of mandamus set forth that it was the duty of the defendants to call the election, but the answer alleged that on account of the contracts and indebtedness already made and incurred they had no right to call the election, and averred that when the building was leased the law required them to provide suitable rooms for high-school purposes and employ teachers and incur indebtedness on account thereof.

The plaintiff contends that under chapter 250 of the Laws of 1921 the election for disorganization ought to be held. It is claimed that the contracts were hurried up in anticipation of the taking effect of this statute and that no indebtedness was incurred as contemplated thereby.

On the part of the defendants it is insisted that the contracts and indebtedness were made when the law required them to be made and that the act of 1921 does not apply and that if it were held to apply it would be void because impairing the obligations of contracts.

By chapter 262 of the Laws of 1911, the electors of certain townships were authorized to organize and maintain township high schools. Chapter 278 of the Laws of 1913 amended section 1 of this act limiting the establishment of such schools to townships in which there were no incorporated cities of certain named population. Chapter 311 of the Laws of 1915 provided for the establishment of rural high schools upon the presentation of a petition signed by two-fifths of the legal electors of the proposed district. Section 6 provided that the board should have the care and control of all property belonging to a high-school district except as in the act provided, and have the powers prescribed by law for school district boards, and authorized the board to secure sites for schools either by donation, purchase or condemnation. Chapter 284 of the Laws of 1917 authorized the legal electors residing in territory containing not less than sixteen square miles and comprising one or more townships within the boundaries thereof to form a rural high-school district. The act of 1915 was amended as to the calling and holding of the election, and a proviso was for the first time adopted to the effect that--

"If any rural high school shall heretofore have voted to organize under the provision of this section, and shall not have accumulated any property, nor incurred any expense or obligation, nor issued any bonds or other evidence of indebtedness, such rural high school may be disorganized upon a petition, . . ."

Section 5, touching the authority of the board, was amended so as to vest in the rural high-school board the care and control of all property except as therein provided and--

"The rural high-school board shall have authority to secure a site, selected as provided in section 2 of this act, either by donation or purchase, to build or purchase a schoolhouse, and to hire a schoolhouse, school rooms, or other property to be used for school purposes; and the district board of any school district shall have authority and is hereby authorized to lease or cause to be leased to any rural high-school board any schoolhouse, school rooms, or other property to be used for rural high-school purposes."

Chapter 250 of the Laws of 1921 amended section 2 of the act of 1917 and when it came to the proviso it used this language:

"That if any rural high-school district shall have voted to organize under the provisions of this act and shall not have issued any bonds or other evidence of indebtedness or if the same shall have been issued and such bonds or evidence of indebtedness shall have been paid in full said district may be disorganized in the following manner: . . ."

Section 2 provided that upon the disorganization of such rural high-school district, the property owned by the district should be divided among the constituent districts in proportion to assessed valuation and should the board own any property the board had authority to sell it and distribute the money.

It will be seen, therefore, that when the alleged indebtedness in this case was incurred and the contracts entered into, disorganization could be had by election provided the district had not accumulated any property or incurred any expense or obligations or issued any bonds or other evidence of indebtedness. But when the act of 1921 took effect the power to disorganize was vested only in districts which had not issued any bonds or other evidence of indebtedness, or having issued such, had paid them off.

The proceedings for calling the election being regular the question to be determined is whether or not the indebtedness existing on the part of the defendant district is such as is included in and indicated by the expression "issued bonds or other evidence of indebtedness." Under the familiar rule such an expression would ordinarily mean the same as if it said "bonds or other similar indebtedness."

No provision is found in the statute and none is pointed out as to what was to become of the indebtedness when districts were disorganized before the act of 1921 took effect. No bonds existed in this case and whether the note given for the rental amounted to "other evidence of indebtedness" is the vital question.

It is manifest that what was meant by the expression "no expense or obligation" used in the act of 1917 is not included within the language of the act of 1921. In the ordinary acceptance of the term any debt whether for teachers' wages or for the lease of a school building would be an obligation. Such obligation is necessarily an expense, but it is certainly not a bond.

In the act of 1917, this language is used: "nor issue any bonds or other evidence of indebtedness." In the act of 1921 "and shall not issue any bonds or other evidence of indebtedness." It is but giving a common and natural effect to the language used to say that the other evidence of indebtedness means such as has been issued and distinct from such indebtedness as may have been merely incurred or created. Webster's New International Dictionary defines "issue" a transitive verb, "To cause to issue; to send or let out; to emit; discharge. To deliver, or give out, as for use; as, to issue provisions. . . . To send out officially; . . . to put into circulation; . . ." In The State v. Pearce, 52 Kan. 521, 35 P. 19, it was held that to issue a county warrant or order means to send out,...