The State ex rel. Fry v. Lee

• Decision Date: 24 May 1926
• Docket Number: 26596
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. J. L. FRY et al., Directors of Consolidated School District, v. CHARLES A. LEE, State Superintendent of Public Schools
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

284 S.W. 129

314 Mo. 486

THE STATE ex rel. J. L. FRY et al., Directors of Consolidated School District, v. CHARLES A. LEE, State Superintendent of Public Schools

No. 26596

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 24, 1926

Peremptory writ awarded.

Wm C. Irwin and Barney Reed for relators.

(1) Jurisdiction to visit the community of Stoutland and investigate the needs of the community and to determine the exact boundaries of a proposed consolidated school district was acquired by the Superintendent of Public Schools of Camden County, on receipt of a petition of more than twenty-five qualified voters of that community, a majority of whom resided in Camden County. Laws 1921, p. 654, sec. 11259. The filing of the petition, the visiting of the community and the describing of boundaries for the district were necessary steps in the formation of the district, and these steps having been taken by a qualified officer authorized by law to perform that function, vested exclusive jurisdiction in that officer over the territory so marked out and defined, subject alone to the power of the Laclede County commissioner to approve or disapprove the plats and notices, and when an appeal was taken from the decision of the Superintendent of Public Schools of Laclede County to the Superintendent of the State, the appeal operated to rob the Superintendent of Laclede County of the jurisdiction over that question and vest it in the State Superintendent whose decision became final and binding upon both parties, and the act of the State Superintendent in signing the plats and notices was in fact the act of the Superintendent of Laclede County, having performed for him that which he should have performed in the first instance. Laws 1921, sec. 11259. (2) "The test of jurisdiction is whether the tribunal had power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its methods were legal, its findings right or its conclusions in accordance with the law." Johnson v. Miller, 50 Ill.App. 60. (3) The power conferred by statute upon the County Superintendent of Public Schools to lay out and designate the lines of a consolidated school district is not merely ministerial, but involves the exercise of a judicial function. (4) Whenever a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction has assumed jurisdiction over the subject-matter it retains that jurisdiction to the end as against another court or tribunal of coordinate jurisdiction. State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 209 Mo 161; Grey v. Independent Order of Forresters, 196 S.W. 779. (5) Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a cause. 11 Cyc. 659.

North T. Gentry, Attorney-General, and J. Henry Caruthers, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

The jurisdictional act in the formation of a consolidated school district is the posting of notices and plats. State ex rel. Moore v. Eden, 54 Mo.App. 35; School Dist. No 1 v. School Dist. No. 4, 94 Mo. 618; State ex rel. v. Young, 84 Mo. 94; State ex inf. v. Smith, 271 Mo. 175.

Seddon, C. Lindsay, C., concurs.

OPINION

SEDDON

This is an original proceeding in mandamus instituted in this court by relators, the directors of Consolidated School District No. 2 of Camden County, to compel the respondent, the State Superintendent of Public Schools, to apportion and set over to Camden County, to the use and benefit of said Consolidated School District No. 2 of Camden County, its share of the public school fund, as provided by law.

The record upon which the proceeding is submitted to this court consists of relators' petition and respondent's demurrer thereto. Inasmuch as all facts well pleaded in the petition are to be taken as true and admitted by respondent's demurrer, we will include herein the salient allegations of those pleadings. The petition, omitting all formal and introductory allegations, is as follows:

"3. Relators say that on the 23rd of May, 1925, the citizens in the common school district of Stoutland, Camden County Missouri, desiring to form a consolidated school district, in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the State of Missouri, did file with the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Camden County, Missouri, a petition containing the names of more than twenty-five resident citizens of said community, praying for the establishment of a consolidated school district in said community of Stoutland, Camden County, Missouri, and praying that said Commissioner of Public Schools of Camden County, Missouri, visit said community and investigate the needs of the community and locate and mark out a proposed consolidated school district in said community; that a majority of said petitioners signing said petition were residents and citizens of Camden County, Missouri; that the said town of Stoutland, Camden County, Missouri, contains a population of about four hundred people and is situated on the line between Camden County and Laclede County, a portion of said town being in Laclede County and a portion thereof being in Camden County; that said commissioner did on the 23rd day of May, 1925, receive and file said petition, and forthwith thereafter the County Superintendent of said Camden County did visit said community, investigate the needs of said community for a consolidated school district and did mark out and establish the boundaries thereof, having due regard for the welfare of adjoining districts; that because of the proximity of the town of Stoutland to the county line of Laclede County the county superintendent was of the opinion that in order to form the best possible consolidation for said community petitioning therefor it was necessary to take into said consolidated district Common School Districts Nos. 13 14 and 15, lying, being and situate in Laclede County, Missouri, and being adjacent to the town of Stoutland, Camden County, Missouri; that he thereupon and immediately marked out said Consolidated School District No. 2 of Camden County, Missouri, by including within its territory Districts Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of Laclede County, Missouri, as well as District No. 84, being the village district of Stoutland, Missouri, and composed of District No. 84 in Camden County and District No. 11 of Laclede County, Missouri, and also districts Nos. 82 and 85 of Camden County, Missouri; that all of said districts comprised, within their borders, two hundred and ninety-eight children of school age; that said proposed consolidated school district did not contain any city, town or village within its boundaries having two hundred children of school age, as shown by the last census thereof; that upon the preparation of said plats the County Superintendent of Camden County presented to the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Laclede County five plats showing the location of and the boundaries to said proposed consolidated school district and requested the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Laclede County to approve and sign said plats; and at the same time the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Camden County presented to the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Laclede County ten notices of election, giving the time, place and purpose of the meeting to be called to vote for or against the organization of said Consolidated School District No. 2; that said presentation and request so made by the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Camden County upon the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Laclede County, and the presentation of said notices and plats for his signature thereto, was made on the 2nd day of June, 1925, and thereupon on and at that time said County Superintendent of Public Schools of Laclede County, Missouri, refused to sign said plats and notices, and thereupon and immediately the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Camden County, Missouri, appealed from the ruling and decision of the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Laclede County to the State Superintendent of Public Schools, as provided by Section 11259, Revised Statutes 1919, as amended by the Laws of 1921; that on the 3rd day of June, 1925, the State Superintendent of Public Schools heard and considered said appeal and being fully advised in the premises did find in favor of the appellant, and thereupon duly approved and signed said plats and notices for the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Laclede County, Missouri; that on the said 3rd day of June, 1925, and in the afternoon of said day, said ten notices and five plats, duly verified in accordance with the law in such cases made and provided, were posted in public places within said proposed consolidated school district; that said notices so signed and posted called for a meeting of the voters of said proposed consolidated school district to meet at Stoutland, Camden County, Missouri, on the 19th day of June, 1925, and that said notices and plats were posted in conspicuous public places for more than fifteen days prior to the day upon which said meeting was called; that thereafter and at two o'clock on the said 19th day of June, 1925, the voters of said proposed consolidated school district, including the inhabitants of Districts Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of Laclede County, Missouri, met at the place designated in said notices and at said time and place the County Superintendent of Public Schools of Camden County was present in person and had there with him a copy of the plat of said proposed consolidated school district and called said meeting to order and presented said plat to said meeting; that thereupon the meeting proceeded to elect a chairman and secretary and proceeded in all things in accordance with the provisions of Section 11237, Revised Statutes 1919, to vote for or against the organization of said consolidated school district; that the voters present at said meeting thereupon...