State v. Wright

• Decision Date: 16 March 1917
• Docket Number: No. 19522.,19522.
• Citation: 270 Mo. 376,194 S.W. 35
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DISTS. NOS. 52 AND 53, CASS COUNTY, et al. v. WRIGHT et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

194 S.W. 35

270 Mo. 376

STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DISTS. NOS. 52 AND 53, CASS COUNTY, et al. v. WRIGHT et al.

No. 19522.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 16, 1917.

Error to Circuit Court, Cass County; B. G. Thurman, Special Judge.

Quo warranto by the State, on relation of School Districts Nos. 52 and 53, Cass County, and others, against Leslie Wright and others. On writ of error to review decree for defendants. Affirmed.

This is a proceeding by quo warranto filed by the prosecuting attorney of Cass county, at the relation of two certain school districts and some 62 taxpaying citizens of that county, against defendants in error here, who were defendants below, to oust them from their offices as directors of a certain consolidated school district. The trial court refused to grant the writ of ouster, and plaintiffs sued out and now prosecute their writ of error.

The action turns upon the question whether said consolidated school district was legally organized. There is but little dispute about the facts. Such of these facts as are necessary to an understanding of the points raised are substantially as follows: A petition containing the requisite statutory number of signers, and which is conceded by plaintiffs to be sufficient in form and substance and sufficiently signed, was presented to one T. J. Walker, who was then superintendent of public schools of Cass county, requesting him to proceed officially under the provisions of Laws of Missouri 1913, p. 721 et seq., to organize a consolidated school district in Cass and Bates counties, with the center of such proposed school district at or near the town of Archie, in Cass county. Thereupon the county superintendent personally went into the neighborhood to be affected and from which the territory to compose the proposed consolidated district would have to be carved for the purpose of examining the situation. Touching his acts in this behalf he says:

"I went to see these citizens and talked the matter over with them, observed the country and the lay of the land, and kept in mind the different boundaries that were to be included within the proposed consolidated district, and kept in mind the territory that was to be embraced within the district, and later I took the plat and in my office laid out the boundaries, knowing as I did the boundaries of the district. I undertook to have in mind the welfare of the adjoining districts and that I must not cripple any adjoining districts or leave them in a condition where it would be impossible for them to have school facilities."

This witness, who is not a party to this action in any wise, testifying as to the manner, nature and extent of his investigations, also said:

"I went with Mr. Pitcher to Archie, where we drove over a large part of the territory and talked with a lot of resident citizens whom I told as I visited them what was my purpose; that I wanted to see the sentiment of the community as to whether they really wanted a consolidated district and high school facilities, telling them what in my judgment would be the advantages of such an organization. To most of them I called attention to the fact that there was at that time no high school existing beween Drexel and Garden City, in Cass county, a stretch of country perhaps 25 miles from one town to another. Whenever a man expressed himself as favorable to it, I asked him if he would sign a petition as an evidence of his good faith, and a great many more were added, to the number of about 70."

There is no controversy as to the sufficiency of the notices, nor as to the posting thereof, nor as to the number of plats which were prepared by the county superintendent and caused to be posted at the requisite statutory number of places. These plats were roughly and somewhat inartificially drawn upon blanks containing numbered sections, townships, and ranges, all of which blanks were filled in as the situation required. The plats as posted and tiled show the southeast corner of the proposed district to be on a certain creek, or water course known as Mormon fork of Grand river, which point the testimony shows was supposed to be coincident with the southeast corner of section nine, though it developed upon exact measurement that the southeast corner of said section 9 was some 13 chains east of this creek. Touching it, however, as well as regarding other contested points, the school superintendent says that he was not personally acquainted with the lines bounding the school districts affected in Bates county; that he made inquiry as to all of these facts, and afterward prepared the plats by the exercise of his best judgment as to what was the proper manner of running the lines.

The plat hereinafter set forth shows the inclusion of an 80-acre tract, which has the effect to produce a seeming inequality in the western boundary of this district. The testimony of defendants, which was in its entirety as to the facts, corroborated by plaintiffs, shows that this tract of land is vacant and uncultivated, and situate in a small, weak common school district. For these reasons the county superintendent included the above tract in the consolidated district. Regarding a certain 80-acre tract, seemingly on the easterly side of the water courses which partly bounded the consolidated district on that side, and a 200-acre tract, being all that was left of a certain common school district in Bates county, both of which tracts were omitted, the county superintendent testifies as to the former that he might have included it if he had known the true facts, but that such omission was justified possibly by the fact that these water courses often become impassable on account of floods. As to the omitted 200-acre tract he says his best judgment was to omit it, which he did, and that this judgment would not have been changed by knowledge (which he did not have at the time) that it was all that was left of a former Bates county common school district. The record does not contain any sufficient evidence by which the alleged bad judgment of the county superintendent is demonstrated, or the judgment upon which he acted in the three certain behalves mentioned is impeached.

The court, as stated, refused to oust the defendants, thereby holding, in effect, that the district was lawfully organized. This is the decisive question and the sole question sought to be settled by this proceeding. Other facts tending to illuminate it will be found in the opinion.

Smith & Chastain, of Butler, for plaintiffs in error. C. A. Denton, of Butler, and W. E. Owen, of Clinton, for defendants in error.

FARIS, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Looking at the brief filed by learned counsel for plaintiffs in error in the light provided by the terms of our rule 15 (186 S. W. viii), adopted April 10, 1916, we find only the below points mooted: (a) That the exact boundaries of the district were never determined by the county superintendent of schools; (b) the county superintendent did not investigate the needs of the community with due regard to the interests of adjoining districts; (c) the court erred in admitting the plat in evidence because it did not show the boundaries of the proposed district; (d) the court erred in admitting evidence that some of the individual plaintiffs participated in and voted at the special election; and (e) that it was error to exclude evidence that the county superintendent made alleged fraudulent representations as to the additional cost in taxes which would be entailed by the establishment of the proposed consolidated district.

I. Coming to a consideration of the complaint that the exact boundaries of the proposed district were never determined by the county superintendent, we note that seven plats were caused to be posted by this official. These plats were headed, "Plat of Proposed Consolidated District No. 2 of Cass and Bates Counties." In the north margin thereof the ranges correctly...