The State ex inf. Bothwell v. Schuster

• Decision Date: 15 December 1920
• Citation: 227 S.W. 60,285 Mo. 399
• Parties: THE STATE ex inf. LAWRENCE BOTHWELL ex rel. ROY GRAY et al., Appellants, v. GEORGE C. SCHUSTER et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

227 S.W. 60

285 Mo. 399

THE STATE ex inf. LAWRENCE BOTHWELL ex rel. ROY GRAY et al., Appellants, v. GEORGE C. SCHUSTER et al

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

December 15, 1920

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. -- Hon. Thomas B. Allen, Judge.

Affirmed.

Ryan & Zwick and Randolph & Randolph for appellants.

(1) The act approved March 14, 1913, which provides for the organization of consolidated school districts is but a part of a general system of laws providing for the education of the youths of the state. And in determining the question as to what law applies we should take into consideration each and every statute that is a part of the school system and that throws light and is applicable to the question to be determined. (2) The Legislature that enacted the consolidated school district law recognized and expressed the fact that said act was not a complete law within itself and that to carry out the intent and provisions of said law it was necessary to go to the general school law of the state as embraced in Chap. 106, R. S. 1909. The Legislature specifically, by Section 1 of said act, provides that "all laws applicable to the organization and government of town and city school districts as provided in Article IV Chapter 106, Revised Statutes 1909, shall be applicable to districts organized under the provisions of this act." Section 10881 provides that all the provisions of Section 10837 relating to the changing of boundary lines of common school districts shall apply to town, city and consolidated school districts. Section 10837 provides "that no new district shall be created or boundary line changed by which any district shall be formed containing within its limits by actual count less than twenty persons of school age or by which any district shall be left containing within its limits by actual count less than twenty persons of school age." In the attempted formation of Consolidated District No. 2 of Clinton County, the district in controversy, it was formed by changing the boundary lines and taking parts of Districts Nos. 30, 32, and Gower City District, of Clinton County, and Districts Nos. 30, 49, and 50, common school districts of Buchanan County; and in so changing the boundary lines of said common school districts and taking a part of the same the uncontradicted evidence is that there were not left in the remaining part of the district the number of children as required by said statute. Therefore, for this reason, said attempted consolidation was void. State ex inf. v. Sweaney 270 Mo. 690. (3) It cannot be said with reason that when the Legislature used the word "organization" in Section 1 of the act, it intended it to apply not to organization but to government and management of the school, for the Legislature used both the words "organization and government" and the word "organization" has a fixed, clear and well-defined meaning. Board of Supervisors v. Duke, 113 Va. 94; Copeland v. School Board, 215 Pa. 359. The word "organization" is clearly used in the sense of formation. State v. School District, 54 Minn. 213; State v. Powers, 5 S.D 627; In re Sanders, 53 Kan. 191. (4) The law required Superintendent Sims to visit the community and investigate the needs and determine the exact boundaries of the proposed consolidated district and to so locate the boundaries as in the judgment of the superintendent would form the best possible consolidated district. In doing so the law required of her to have due regard also for the welfare of the adjoining districts. Under this law a discretionary power is given to the superintendent to locate the boundaries of the district and if this discretion has been honestly and reasonably exercised then her action is not subject to judicial inquiry. If, on the other hand, the evidence shows that no inquiry or investigation as to the needs of the districts were made, that no regard or thought was given to the adjoining districts, and that her action was unreasonable and arbitrary and resulted in injury to the public, then her act was subject to judicial review. State ex rel. v. Lafayette County Court, 41 Mo. 321; State ex rel. Kellerher v. School Board, 134 Mo. 296; State ex rel. v. Dryer, 183 Mo.App. 481; State ex rel. v. Adcock, 206 Mo. 256.

H. K. White and R. H. Musser for respondents.

(1) The constitutionality of the act is now unquestioned. State ex rel. Dist. v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631; State ex inf. v. Morgan, 268 Mo. 272; State ex inf. v. Stouffer, 197 S.W. 252. (2) Section 5 provides for the annexation of parts of districts remaining after the formation of consolidated districts in a summary manner. State ex inf. v. Stouffer, 197 S.W. 252; State ex rel. v. Hill, 152 Mo. 238; State ex inf. v. Jones, 266 Mo. 198; Hislop v. Joplin, 250 Mo. 599; Copeland v. St. Joseph, 126 Mo. 431; Birch v. Plattsburg, 180 Mo. 413; State ex inf. v. Smith, 271 Mo. 177. (3) The determination of the boundaries of the district proposed by the petitioners is left by Section 3 of said act solely to the judgment of the superintendent, and the question of the correctness of the judgment exercised by the superintendent and the regard had for the welfare of the adjoining districts are required to be passed upon by the voters of that community within said district at the special election held solely for this purpose, and the measure of judgment or of due regard is solely vested in the superintendent and is not a judicial question. State ex inf. v. Gleaves, 268 Mo. 105; State ex inf. v. Stouffer, 197 S.W. 251; State ex inf. v. Jones, 166 Mo. 197; Gross v. Moreland, 190 S.W. 962; State ex rel. v. Sims, 201 S.W. 910. (4) If Mrs. Sims, Superintendent, committed any error of judgment in locating the boundaries of this district, that error, absent a showing that the approval of those boundaries by the voters was procured by deception and fraud, cannot be corrected by proceedings in quo warranto, and the private wrongs or grievances of the relators are not a matter to be inquired into by quo warranto. The State is the only aggrieved party, and unless it has been injuried thereby the writ should not be awarded. State ex inf. v. Duncan, 265 Mo. 34; State ex inf. Crow, v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 687; State ex inf. v. Stouffer, 197 S.W. 252; School Dist. v. District, 195 Mo.App. 504; State ex rel. v. Job, 205 Mo. 32; State ex inf. v. Fleming, 158 Mo. 563; State v. Weatherby, 45 Mo. 17.

MOZLEY, C. Railey and White, CC., concur.

OPINION

MOZLEY, C.

Quo warranto, instituted by the Prosecuting Attorney of Buchanan County, at the relation of Roy Gray et al., against respondents, in the circuit court of said county.

The action has for its object the ousting of respondents, viz., George C. Schuster, James M. Allison, Henry C. Ransdell, Earnest T. Smith, O. G. Singleton and J. C. Stark, from the office of school director of Consolidated School District No. 2, of Clinton and Buchanan counties. It is alleged in the petition that respondents are assuming authority to do so, and are acting as such directors, without authority of law; that the organization of said district was in violation of law and the election of respondents as directors therein was likewise unlawful.

Respondent's return pleads that the information does not state any facts upon which to base quo warranto proceedings, or in any way sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the respondents. They further answer as follows:

"That on the 16th day of February, 1917, more than twenty-five resident citizens and qualified voters of the community of Gower, residents in each Clinton and Buchanan County presented to Mrs. Anna L. Sims, the duly elected, acting and qualified superintendent of schools of Clinton County, their petition that she form a consolidated school district in said community and of parts of each county, and the said county superintendent did thereafter on the -- day of February, 1917, having jurisdiction thereof, visit the said community, investigate the needs of said community and determine the boundary lines for a proposed consolidated school district, locating said boundary lines as would, in her judgment, form the best possible consolidated district, having due regard also to the welfare of the adjoining districts, and having so determined the boundary lines, did on the 27th day of February, 1917, make a plat of said proposed consolidated district, and certified at said time to the county clerk of each Buchanan and Clinton County, and to the county superintendent of schools of Buchanan County, Missouri, certified copies of said plat and petition of twenty-five and more resident citizens and qualified voters of said community, retaining the originals in her office.

"That also at said time said Anna L. Sims, county superintendent as aforesaid, did call a special meeting of all the qualified voters of the proposed consolidated school district for the purpose of considering the question of consolidation, said special meeting being called for two o'clock p. m. on the afternoon of Thursday, the 15th day of March, 1917, at the school building of the then Gower School District; that said special meeting was called by posting within said proposed consolidated school district, at public places therein, ten notices, stating in said notices the time, place and purposes of said meeting, viz:

"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, two for three years, two for two years and two for one year, and that said meeting would commence at two o'clock p. m. on the date set, at the place mentioned therein, and the said notices so posted as aforesaid in public places as...