State v. Van Peursem

• Decision Date: 26 October 1926
• Docket Number: 37718
• Citation: 210 N.W. 576,202 Iowa 545
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA ex rel. DAN DOHERTY, Appellee, v. PETER VAN PEURSEM et al., Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

210 N.W. 576

202 Iowa 545

STATE OF IOWA ex rel. DAN DOHERTY, Appellee, v. PETER VAN PEURSEM et al., Appellants

No. 37718

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 26, 1926

Appeal from Sioux District Court.--B. F. BUTLER, Judge.

Action in quo warranto on the relation of a taxpayer, denying the right of defendants to hold offices in a claimed newly organized independent school district. From a judgment for the relator the defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Van Oosterhout & Kolyn, for appellants.

C. W Pitts and Anthony Te Paske, for appellee.

VERMILION J. DE GRAFF, C. J., and STEVENS and FAVILLE, JJ., concur.

OPINION

VERMILION, J.

Prior to the commencement of the proceedings the legality of which is questioned in this action, there was in existence an Independent School District of Maurice, Sioux County, which included within its boundaries all the territory within the corporate limits of the town of Maurice and certain territory outside of and contiguous to the town. The town of Maurice contains more than 100 residents. A petition signed by more than 10 voters of the town, and another signed by a majority of the resident electors of certain contiguous territory described therein, asking for the formation of a new independent district, to include the town and the described contiguous territory, were presented to the board of directors of the existing independent district. The territory outside the limits of the town, which it was proposed to include in the new district, comprised all of such contiguous territory as was then within the existing district, and certain territory not then a part of the district. These proceedings were taken under authority of Section 4141 of the Code of 1924, and there is no contention that the statute was not complied with.

At the election, called and held in pursuance of appropriate action of the board on these petitions, as authorized by Section 4142, under the mandatory injunction of the district court, separate ballot boxes were used, one for the voters residing in the town, another for those residing outside the town and within the existing independent district, and a third for those residing outside the existing district. The proposition for the creation of the new district received a majority of 32 in the town, and of 41 in the territory outside the town and within the old district, but was lost in the territory outside the existing district by a majority of 28. The board found that the proposition had carried both in the town and in the territory outside the town, and declared the proposed district established. The appellants, who were directors and officers of the old district, claim, under the provisions of Section 4144, to be officers and directors of such newly established district. Their contention must be sustained if the proposed new independent district was legally established, but denied if it was not so established.

The statutes under which the establishment of the new district was attempted are as follows:

"4141. Upon the written petition of any ten voters of a city, town, or village of over one hundred residents, to the board of the school corporation in which the portion of the city or town having the largest number of voters is situated, such board shall establish the boundaries of a proposed independent district, including therein all of the city, town, or village, and also such contiguous territory as is authorized by a written petition of a majority of the resident electors of the contiguous territory proposed to be included in said district, in subdivisions not smaller than the smallest tract as made by the government survey in the same or any adjoining school corporations, as may best subserve the convenience of the people for school purposes, and shall give the same notices of a meeting as required in other cases.

"4142. At the meeting all voters upon the territory included within the contemplated independent district shall be allowed to vote by ballot for or against such independent organization. When it is proposed to include territory outside the city, town, or village, the voters residing upon such outside territory shall vote separately upon the proposition for the formation of such new district. If a majority of the votes so cast is against including such outside territory, then the proposed independent district shall not be formed. When such territory is included in an independent district, adequate school facilities shall be provided for the increased attendance."

Section 4191, however, provides:

"Whenever it is proposed to extend the limits of, or add territory to an existing independent city, town, or consolidated district, the voters residing within the proposed extension or addition and outside the existing independent district, shall vote separately upon the proposition. The proposition must be approved by a majority of the...