Thomas v. Board of School Directors of Parish of Webster

• Decision Date: 11 January 1915
• Docket Number: 20699
• Citation: 136 La. 499,67 So. 345
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: THOMAS et al. v. BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF PARISH OF WEBSTER

67 So. 345

136 La. 499

THOMAS et al. v. BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF PARISH OF WEBSTER

No. 20699

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 11, 1915

Rehearing Denied February 8, 1915

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A statute which deals with several branches of one subject does not violate the constitutional provision that it shall embrace but one object.

Referring to local or special laws, articles 48-50 of the Constitution have no application to a statute which defines and relates to every subdivision of the state except the city of New Orleans.

Where the object of an act is otherwise expressed in its title, it is not necessary that the title should expressly declare its object to be to put into effect the article of the Constitution in pursuance of which the statute was enacted.

It is not required that the petition of the taxpayers of a school district, requesting the board of school directors to call a special tax election, should be recorded, except perhaps in the minutes of the proceedings had at the meetings of the board.

In an election in which the taxpayers of a school district vote upon a proposition to levy a special tax to build a schoolhouse, it is not necessary that the location of the proposed schoolhouse within the district shall be stated on the ballots. The taxpayers have all the information required when the printed ballots conform with the requirements of the statute under which the election is held.

Lynn K Watkins, of Minden, for appellants.

Thomas W. Robertson and Stewart & Stewart, all of Minden, for appellee.

OPINION

O'NIELL, J.

This is a suit by three taxpayers of Leton school district No. 25, of the parish of Webster, to annul a special election held on the 15th of July, 1913, at which a 10-mill school tax was authorized to be levied upon all taxable property within the district for five years, and to annul the ordinance of the parish board of school directors, levying the tax.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, declaring the election proceedings and the tax valid, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

The causes of nullity of the proceedings are alleged to be:

First. That the Act 256 of 1910, as amended in 1912, has more than one object, some of which objects are not expressed in its title; and that therefore it violates article 31 of the Constitution of this state.

Second. That the Act 256 of 1910 is a local and special law, because it does not embrace in its provisions all parts of the state; and that it therefore violates article 48 of the Constitution, prohibiting the enactment of local or special laws for holding or conducting elections, or regulating the management of public schools, or building or repairing schoolhouses, or raising money for school purposes.

Third. That the statute does not expressly put into effect article 232 of the Constitution, which, without an enabling act, is inoperative.

Fourth. That the Act 256 of 1910, as amended, conflicts with article 49 of the Constitution, prohibiting the enactment of special laws by the repeal of general statutes.

Fifth. That the statute is in conflict with article 48 of the Constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from making corporate bodies and constituting the parish school board a body corporate with the right to form subdivisions of the parish with the right to levy and collect taxes.

Sixth. That notice of the intention to introduce the acts of 1910 and 1912 was not published as is required of local or special laws by article 50 of the Constitution.

Seventh. That the petition of the property taxpayers, requesting the governing authority of the school district to call the special election, was not preserved or recorded.

Eighth. That the petition was not signed by the taxpayers in person nor with their authority, and that the names on the petition do not constitute one-fourth of the property taxpayers of the district.

Ninth. That the resolution of the board, calling the election, did not state the years for which the tax would be levied, nor the total amount to be collected.

Tenth. That the ballots used at the election did not show on their face the location and site of the school building.

Elevanth. That the commissioners and clerk of election were not sworn as required by law.

Twelfth. That no list was kept, nor were any returns made, to show who voted or the result of the election.

Thirteenth. That, if the proceedings were valid, there were enough legal votes against the tax not counted, and enough votes illegally counted in favor of the tax, to change the result; and that the proposition to levy the tax was in reality defeated.

In this connection, it is alleged:

That the vote of John G. Colbert against the tax was arbitrarily reduced from $ 1,120 to $ 750, and, after he was permitted to vote the latter sum, his vote was not counted.

That Joe M. Elkins was entitled to vote and offered to vote against the proposition an assessment of $ 375, but was not permitted to vote; and that he then offered to cast the vote for his wife, Mrs. C. E. Elkins, but although fully authorized by her, he was not allowed by the commissioners to vote. That Walter Lewis was permitted to vote, and did vote in favor of the tax an assessment of $ 490, in the name of his wife, without any authority from her; and that Martin Slack voted in favor of the tax an assessment of $ 170 in the name of Miss S. E. Anderson, without any authority from her.

That the votes cast by T. W. Perkins and John S. Lee in favor of the tax should each be reduced $ 80 on account of property sold by them before the election.

That I. R. Slack, who voted an assessment of $ 500 in favor of the tax, was not legally registered, having made his mark to the application to register.

That the name of M. A. Blackwell, who voted an assessment of $ 360 in favor of the tax, was written on the typewritten list of voters with a pencil by some unknown person, and was not on the certified list.

And that R. N. Lee, who voted an assessment of $ 720, C. W. Whitaker, who voted an assessment of $ 630, C. W. Johnson, who voted an assessment of $ 350, D. F. Shaw, who voted an assessment of $ 650, Mont. D. Lee, who voted an assessment of $ 390, C. C. Lee, who voted an assessment of $ 400, and J. S. Lee, who voted an assessment of $ 350, all voting in favor of the tax, were not resident taxpayers of the Leton school district.

Fourteenth. That there was no proces verbal made of the recount of the ballots and canvass of the returns by the school board, and therefore none was recorded or filed with the clerk of court or the secretary of state.

Fifteenth. That W. I. Dickinson, Mrs. A. O. Dickinson, and E. D. Kight assessed for property in the district amounting, respectively, to $ 330, $ 110, and $ 430, were opposed to the levy of the tax, but were, by a promise of being put into another district and relieved of the tax, induced not to vote against it.

The defendant, in answer to the suit, denied every material allegation in the petition, and, in a supplemental answer, alleged that J. W. Murrell voted, not only the property assessed to him, but also that belonging to Ben Shockly; and that the property assessed to Nora Lee was not voted by her in person nor by written proxy to any one else; and that these votes were therefore illegally cast and counted against the tax.

Opinion.

The first contention of the plaintiffs is that the Act 256 of 1910, as amended by the Acts of 1912, violates article 31 of the Constitution. We assume that the reference to the Acts of 1912 is to Act No. 218 of that year, amending sections 2 and 31, and repealing sections 26 and 29 of Act 256 of 1910.

The title of the statute in question is:

'An act to define the subdivisions of the state; to prescribe the mode and manner of calling, holding, and promulgating the result of elections held therein for the purpose of levying a special tax or forced contribution, or issuing bonds; to provide for the manner of levying and collecting such tax and issuing bonds; to provide the manner of the payment of the interest and principal of such bonds; to fix the limit in which elections may be contested; to make this act applicable to levee districts in certain cases; to provide a penalty for the...