The State ex inf. Otto v. School District of Lathrop

• Decision Date: 21 May 1926
• Docket Number: 26203
• Citation: 284 S.W. 135,314 Mo. 315
• Parties: THE STATE ex inf. ROBERT W. OTTO, Attorney-General, ex rel. WILLIAM R. HARRINGTON and MARTHA HARRINGTON, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LATHROP, E. D. ROGERS and NORVAL W. STONUM
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

284 S.W. 135

314 Mo. 315

THE STATE ex inf. ROBERT W. OTTO, Attorney-General, ex rel. WILLIAM R. HARRINGTON and MARTHA HARRINGTON, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LATHROP, E. D. ROGERS and NORVAL W. STONUM

No. 26203

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 21, 1926

Proceeding Dismissed.

John A. Cross, R. H. Musser and Pross T. Cross for relators.

(1) The attempt to change the boundary lines of the Lathrop School District so as to embrace and include the two adjoining country districts was illegal and invalid, as found in State ex rel. v. Scott, 307 Mo. 250. It is there clearly held that the provision for "change of boundary lines" cannot be made the vehicle for consolidation. (2) The doctrine of laches had no application to the facts in this case.

W S. Herndon and Daniel H. Frost for respondents.

(1) The petition to change the boundary lines of the Lathrop district was absolutely sufficient under the law. R. S. 1919, sec 11201; State ex rel. v. Job, 205 Mo. 1. (2) A copy of this petition fully setting forth the change of boundary lines desired was attached to each notice that was posted and published, so that the notice was proper and sufficient. State ex rel v. Job, 205 Mo. 1. (3) Each district voted separately and the proposition was carried in each of them. This proposition having been ratified by all the districts became a fact, and this was made a record of and properly certified to the County Superintendent of Schools and to the office of the County Clerk. (4) The proceedings leading up to the election, were clean, without even the suggestion of fraud. Section 11201, while found in Article 3 relating to laws applicable to common schools, is by the statute in plain words made applicable to city, town and consolidated school districts, as to all provisions relating to change of boundary lines. Sec. 11253, R. S. 1919; State ex. inf. v. Sweazy, 270 Mo. 691; State ex rel. v Thurman, 274 S.W. 800. (5) As it seems definitely fixed that Section 11201, relating to the change of boundary lines between common school districts, applies equally to city and town districts, the change of boundary lines in this instance was such a change as is contemplated by Section 11201. The effect of the change of boundary lines was to wipe out old Districts 44 and 45 by adding them as a total to School District of Lathrop. The intent and spirit of the statute is to permit the residents of the districts to adjust the boundary lines as may seem best to them. In fact, this statute relative to change of boundary lines should be liberally construed. School Dist. v. New London Dist., 181 Mo.App. 589; School Dist. v. Chappell, 155 Mo.App. 498; State ex rel. v. Clymer, 164 Mo.App. 676; State ex rel. v. Dist., 238 S.W. 819; State ex rel. v. Job, 203 Mo. 34; State ex rel. v. Thompson, 260 S.W. 84; State ex rel. v. Hill, 152 Mo. 234. (6) The evidence shows that this change of the boundary lines of the Lathrop School District, so as to include all of the territory contained in former Common School Districts 44 and 45, was carried into effect immediately following the annual meetings in Districts 44 and 45, and the annual election in Lathrop District, on the 3rd day of April, 1917. That from and after that date Districts 44 and 45 ceased to function or to exercise any of the purposes for which they were originally organized and that no annual meetings have been held prior to the date of the filing of the information in this case. That at four consecutive meetings in the district, 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917, the voters had voted "No School." The principle of laches and acquiescence on the part of the State and its officers from the 3rd day of April, 1917, to the 21st day of March, 1925, the date of the filing of the information by the Attorney-General, a period of almost eight years, during which time the said school districts ceased to function as such, and all school revenues, from taxation of all property in the territory contained in the three districts and apportioned to all children in that territory, should forbid the legality to be questioned. State ex rel. v. Town of Mansfield, 99 Mo.App. 152; State ex rel. v. Town of Westport, 116 Mo. 582. Where a municipality has been recognized by court and officers for a number of years, the State is precluded from depriving it of its franchise. State ex rel. v. Town of Westport, supra; State ex rel. v. City of Carterville, 183 S.W. 1093; State ex rel. v. Miller, 113 Mo.App. 688. (7) The issuance of the writ of quo warranto is a discretionary matter with the court, and while the rule and practice in this State is that upon the filing of an information by the Attorney-General the writ issues as a matter of course, upon final hearing the matter rests with the sound discretion of the court. State ex rel. v. Town of Mansfield, 99 Mo.App. 152; Stamper v. Roberts, 90 Mo. 683; Landrum v. Union Bank, 63 Mo. 48; Kitchen v. Railroad, 69 Mo. 224; Bradshaw v. Yates, 67 Mo. 221; State ex rel. v. Cupples, 283 Mo. 115. The Statute of Limitations does not govern. State ex inf. v. Lumber Co., 260 Mo. 284.

White, J. All concur, except Otto, J., not sitting.

OPINION

WHITE

The Attorney-General on March 21, 1925, at the relation of the relators, filed in this court his information in the nature of a quo warranto, in which he challenges the authority of the School District of Lathrop to exercise jurisdiction over certain territory, which relators claim is not within the territory of that school district, but belongs to School Districts Nos. 44 and 45 in Clinton County, Missouri. Respondents filed their answer and return, setting up facts which they claim bring the disputed territory into the Lathrop District. The relators filed a reply, joining issue on certain averments of fact pleaded in the return.

Thereafter on July 3, 1925, this court appointed E. L. Alford special commissioner to take evidence upon the issues so joined and report to this court. The commissioner duly filed his report on January 11, 1926, transmitting with that report the evidence taken in pursuance of this court's order. The cause was argued and submitted during the January call of Court in Banc upon the record as thus presented.

It appears from the allegations of the petition, admitted in the answer, and the evidence produced here, that prior to April 3, 1917, the School District of Lathrop in Clinton County was a town school district with six directors and more than two hundred pupils of school age; that it contained within its boundaries certain lands described in the petition, comprising one and three-fourths sections. At that date School District No. 44 was a common school district adjoining the District of Lathrop on the east and comprised several sections of land. School District No. 45 was a common school district comprising several sections adjoining the School District of Lathrop on the west.

At the regular annual meeting of all the school districts, April 3, 1917, the School District of Lathrop, School District No. 44 and School District No. 45 voted to extend the boundaries of the School District of Lathrop so as to include all the territory in the two country districts, Nos. 44 and 45. The illegality of that proceeding is asserted by the relators. They claim that the proceeding was void, and the School District of Lathrop has no authority or jurisdiction over the territory which formerly comprised Districts Nos. 44 and 45, and no right to collect taxes on the property therein; that the respondents Rogers and Stonum, residing in the territory of the original Districts Nos. 44 and 45, have no authority to act as directors of the School District of Lathrop. The respondents say that the proceeding was regular and that the relators are guilty of such laches as to preclude their right to have it annulled.

Evidence of considerable volume was taken and reported by the commissioner, and we find no serious conflict as to the facts. The notices of the annual school meetings in each of the districts specified, among other things, that a proposition would be submitted to extend the boundaries as stated above; that they were in regular form and duly signed by the required number of qualified voters residing in the several districts; that all the proceedings leading up to the election were regular; that a vote was taken in each district April 3, 1917, and in each district the proposition carried.

After that election no schools were held in former School Districts Nos. 44 and 45, and the children of those districts attended the Lathrop school. The school houses in Nos. 44 and 45 were sold, and the school taxes on the land in those districts were levied and collected by the School District of Lathrop.

I. Section 11123 in Chapter 102, Revised Statutes 1919, classifies schools as follows:

"First, all districts having only three directors shall be known as common school districts; second, all districts outside of incorporated cities, towns and villages, which are governed by six directors, shall be known as consolidated school districts; third, all districts governed by six directors and in which is located any city of the fourth class, or any incorporated town or village, shall be known as town school districts."

The fourth relates to districts located in cities of the first, second and third classes.

School Districts Nos. 44 and 45 belonged to the first class, common school districts; the School District of Lathrop belongs to the third class, being an incorporated town and having six directors.

The statute relating to the proceeding undertaken is Section 11201, which begins with these provisions: "When it is deemed necessary to form a new district, to be composed of two or more entire districts, or parts of two or more districts, to divide one district to form two...