The State ex Informatione Lowe v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 06 July 1898 |
| Parties | The State ex Informatione Lowe, Prosecuting Attorney, Appellant, v. Henderson et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. -- Hon. E. P. Gates, Judge.
Affirmed.
Gage Ladd & Small and R. B. Middlebrook for appellant.
(1) The school laws of the State contemplate the existence of but one school district within a city, and that within its jurisdiction there shall at all times be embraced at least all of the territory within the corporate limits of such city. By operation of law, as a consequence of the annexation of the city of Westport to Kansas City, by the extension of the limits of the latter, the limits of the school district to Kansas City were also extended, so as to embrace the territory formerly within the limits of the school district of the city of Westport. McGovern v. Fairchild, 2 Wash. 479; School Comm'rs v. Center Township, 143 Ind. 391; School Township v. School Township, 109 Ind. 559; McGurn v. Board of Education, 133 Ill 122; Curtis v. Board of Education, 43 Kan. 138. (2) In case of doubt between two possible constructions of a statute, that one should be adopted which will avoid inconvenience and not lead to an absurdity. Kane v Railroad, 112 Mo. 39; Railroad v. Interstate Com. Com., 162 U.S. 218; Jersey Co. v. Davidson, 29 N. J. Law, 424; Kerlein v. Buell, 1 Dall. 177; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 24 Pick. 370; Lamar Water Co. v. City of Lamar, 128 Mo. 188; Boyd Paving Co. v. Ward, 85 F. 27; Ormsby v. Ottman, 85 F. 492. (3) School districts, regarded as corporations, are creatures of the legislative will, which may destroy them at its pleasure. Cooley's Const. Lim. [2 Ed.], p. 191; Laramie Co. v. Albany Co., 92 U.S. 397; Mt. Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U.S. 529; St. Louis v. Allen, 13 Mo. 400; Rawson v. Spencer, 113 Mass. 40.
A. M. Allen and Frank H. Dexter for respondents.
(1) The school laws have been so modified that any town, etc., whether incorporated or not, would become a single school district. State ex rel. v. Heath, 56 Mo. 237. (2) The Westport school district having been organized and become a body corporate and having been in existence for thirty years and being possessed of property valued at $ 150,000, and having maintained a school for nine months each and every year for the last thirty years, its organization can not now be called in question; neither can it be dissolved without some law authorizing it to be done, nor can its directors be disturbed in the discharge of their duties as such. (3) School districts are corporations organized under the general laws of this State and these corporations are entirely independent of the municipal government. Water Works Co. v. School District, 23 Mo.App. 241. (4) School district is a quasi corporation; the power rests with the people which is the corporate body. Buckman v. School District, 25 Mo.App. 85; Knowles v. Board of Education, 33 Kan. 692; Heller v. Stremmel, 52 Mo. 309; School District v. School District, 94 Mo. 617. (5) Each organized school district in the State is a body corporate and the territorial form of such body can only be changed in the manner pointed out by law. School District v. Goodding, 120 Mo. 72; State v. School District, 46 Iowa 426; State v. Marshall, 48 Mo.App. 560. (6) School districts can only be organized out of territory which has not been previously organized for the same purpose. Section 7022, Revised Statutes 1879, which said statute has been carried into the revision of 1889. Perryman v. Bethune, 89 Mo. 158. (7) No part of a school district can withdraw from the district when no vote is taken to unite with another district. Shattuck v. Philips, 78 Mo. 80; Henry v. Dull, 74 Mo. 443. (8) Where a district is divided the old corporation owns the property and is liable for the debts. Board of Education v. School District, 45 Kan. 560; McCrum v. Board of Education, 133 Ill. 129.
In Banc.
This is an information in the nature of a quo warranto to test the right of the respondents to the office of directors in the school district of the city of Westport. The proceeding was brought originally in the circuit court of Jackson county and upon a trial therein, ouster was denied, and the relator has appealed to this court.
Two questions are presented in the record: First, is the extension of the city limits of Kansas City as voted by the qualified voters of said city on December 2, 1897, valid? and, second, if valid, did such extension and the resulting extinction of the corporate existence of the city of Westport also destroy the existence of the school district of the city of Westport?
The facts, necessary to an intelligent consideration of these questions, are that the City of Kansas now Kansas City was incorporated by an act of the General Assembly of this State, approved February 22, 1853. Laws of Mo., 1852-3, p. 244.
In pursuance of the provisions of sections 16 and 17 of article IX of the Constitution of Missouri (1875) the City of Kansas framed a charter for its own government, which was ratified by the qualified voters of the city at an election held April 8, 1889, and became the charter of the city May 9, 1889. Under this charter the corporate name of the city was changed to Kansas City.
The town of Westport was organized by an act of the General Assembly of the State of Missouri entitled "An act to incorporate the Town of Westport in Jackson county," approved, February 12, 1857. In 1881 Westport was organized into a city of the fourth class in conformity with the provisions of section 4385 of the Revised Statutes of 1879.
On the sixteenth day of March, 1897, the common council of Kansas City passed a resolution reciting that "it was the desire of Kansas City by amendment to its charter to extend its corporate limits so as to include the city of Westport and other adjacent territory," etc. This resolution was furnished the mayor of Westport by the mayor of Kansas City. Pursuant to that resolution the mayor of Kansas City notified the mayor of Westport on the tenth of March, 1897, that it was the desire and intention of Kansas City to extend its corporate limits so as to include within said limits the city of Westport, "if and when the qualified voters of Westport shall desire and consent thereto as provided by law," and requested the mayor of Westport to order a special election to ascertain the wishes of said voters upon the question. In pursuance of this notice the mayor of Westport called a special election for the twenty-eighth day of September, 1897, and the qualified voters of Westport by a vote of 1,034 for and 164 against said proposition elected that Westport should be included in Kansas City. Thereupon, upon receipt of the formal notification of the result in Westport, the law-making authorities of Kansas submitted to the voters of said city a proposal to extend the limits of Kansas City over Westport and ordered an election to be had the second day of December, 1897, and said proposal was published in four newspapers in said city for thirty days. The election in Kansas City resulted in a vote of 5,731 for and 323 against annexation of Westport.
Prior to these proceedings the city of Westport had been organized into a school district under the laws of this State, and its corporate name was "The School District of the City of Westport.' The defendants are the duly elected directors of said school district. Certain territory not embraced within the corporate limits of the city of Westport was attached to the school district of the city of Westport for school purposes. By the extension of the limits of Kansas City all of the territory within the corporate limits of the city of Westport was embraced. By such extension was also embraced all of the territory outside the corporate limits of Westport which had been attached to the school district of Westport for school purposes except a strip of country lying south of the southern limits of Kansas city as extended, three quarters of a mile wide and two and a half miles long. Kansas City is organized into a single school district and has all the powers conferred by law upon school districts in cities of its size and as such has the government and control of the schools within the limits of Kansas City prior to the extension of the limits over Westport.
I. In order to advise the school boards of Kansas City and Westport of their respective rights, and to avoid the danger of closing the public schools in said cities, or endangering the collection of the school taxes therein, this cause has been advanced out of its regular order.
Addressing ourselves to the discussion had by the counsel for the respective school boards, we find that the learned counsel for the Kansas City school board assume as their first postulate that "by operation of law, as a consequence of the annexation of Westport to Kansas City, the limits of the school district of Kansas City were also extended so as to embrace the territory formerly within the limits of the school district of Westport." Unquestionably the condition of affairs growing out of the annexation does present many difficulties that have not been anticipated and provided for by the legislature in the statutes governing the schools or municipalities of the State. We must determine the question in the light of the existing laws. Certainly it is the policy of the State to make the school districts of cities like Kansas City coextensive with the corporate limits, but we conceive that this alone will not sustain the proposition that the annexation of new territory to the municipality, of necessity, also attaches it to the school district thereof,...
To continue reading
Request your trial