Tompkins v. District Boundary Board

• Decision Date: 04 February 1947
• Citation: Tompkins v. District Boundary Board, 180 Or. 339, 177 P.2d 416 (Or. 1947)
• Parties: TOMPKINS <I>v.</I> DISTRICT BOUNDARY BOARD OF YAMHILL COUNTY ET AL.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

180 Or. 339

177 P.2d 416

TOMPKINS

v. DISTRICT BOUNDARY BOARD OF YAMHILL COUNTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued January 9, 1947.

Reversed February 4, 1947.

Action — Parties — Declaratory judgment

1. A taxpayer of a school district could maintain a declaratory judgment that statute permitting the withdrawal of school districts from union high school districts is unconstitutional.

Statutes — Titles — Amendments

2. The title of an amendatory act is sufficient if it refers to a particular section of the code or other compilation of laws without indicating the subject matter of the section, and under such title any legislation which could have been included in the original act will not be objectionable.

Statutes — Titles — Amendments

3. Under constitutional provision that every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title, where an act amends a particular section of the code or other compilation of laws without indicating the subject matter of the section, no provision is permissible which is beyond the scope of the subject expressed in the title of the act amended.

Statutes — Titles — Construction

4. The title of an act is to receive a liberal construction if necessary to sustain the legislative intent, and if the words used in the title taken in any sense that they will bear, are sufficient to cover the provisions of the act, the act will be sustained, even though such meaning may not be the most common meaning of such words, but such rule is to be used to effectuate, not to defeat, the legislative intent.

Statutes — Titles — Construction

5. The constitutional provision requiring the subject or object of a statute to be stated in the title, etc., should not be construed strictly, but reasonably, and even liberally, and due regard given not only to its letter but also to its spirit.

Statutes — Titles — Construction

6. The constitutional provision that every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title, should not be interpreted so as to render it oppressive or impracticable, nor so liberally as to render it nugatory.

Statutes — Titles — Amendments

7. Where title to original act was "An act to provide for the establishment of union high school districts * * *" an amendment of the statute by providing for the withdrawal of school districts which had been annexed to high school districts over its objections is germane to the original act and does not offend against the constitutional provision that every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title.

Constitutional law — Statutes — Validity

8. Every legislative act is presumed to be constitutional, and every intendment must be indulged by court in favor of its validity.

  See 50 Am. Jur. 137, et seq.; 59 C.J., Statutes, § 407
                

Appeal from Circuit Court, Yamhill County.

R. FRANK PETERS, Judge.

Paul A. Sayre and John H. Holloway, both of Portland, for appellants.

Irving D. Brown, of Salem, for respondent.

Before ROSSMAN, Chief Justice, and LUSK, BELT, BAILEY and HAY, Justices.

REVERSED.

BAILEY, J.

This is a proceeding under the uniform declaratory judgments act (§ 6-601 to 6-616, inc., O.C.L.A.), to obtain an adjudication of the validity of § 111-3143, O.C.L.A., as amended by chapter 253, Oregon Laws 1945. From a judgment on the pleadings, declaring the amendment unconstitutional, defendants, School District No. 94 of Yamhill County, the directors and clerk thereof, Dayton Union High School District No. 4 of Yamhill County, and the directors and clerk thereof, have appealed.

Jake Tompkins, Jr., owner of real property and a taxpayer in School District No. 94 is plaintiff, and defendants are the appellants above named and the members of the District Boundary Board of Yamhill County, Amity Union High School District No. 5 of Yamhill County and the directors and clerk thereof. Those defendants who have not appealed were served with the amended complaint but made no appearance after such service.

Section 111-3143, as originally enacted, was § 3 of chapter 101, General Laws of Oregon, 1907. The title of that chapter reads as follows: "An act to provide for the establishment of union high school districts, and for the maintenance and government of the same, and to define the powers thereof." Section 3 of chapter 101 prescribed the procedure to be followed whenever "it is desired to unite two or more contiguous school districts in this state for high school purposes only". It had been amended seven times prior to the 1945 amendment, which added to subsection 8 of § 111-3143, supra, the following:

"If the board finds that in any district consisting of an island a majority of the vote was not in favor of forming a union high school district, and yet by the provisions of this act such district has been made a part of said union high school district, such district voting against the formation of a union high school district may, at any date after five years but not later than 15 years from the date of the formation of the union high school district, at a district election called as provided by law, vote upon the proposition of remaining as part of the union high school district. The district boundary board shall canvass the vote and determine the results thereof. If the boundary board determines that a majority of the vote is in favor of withdrawal, said withdrawal shall become effective at the end of the school year in which the election is held. This provision shall not apply where withdrawal of the district will make any of the remainder of the union high school district noncontiguous and the withdrawal of a district from a union high school district under this provision shall not relieve the district so withdrawn from liability for indebtedness contracted while it was a part of a union high school district; provided, that a school district withdrawing from a union high school district under the provision of this act shall not be liable for indebtedness of the union high school district incurred subsequent to the date of calling an election at which such district votes to withdraw from such union high school district."

An emergency was declared, and chapter 253, supra, became effective on March 17, 1945.

The facts are not in dispute. On or about the 12th day of November, 1930, a petition was filed with the District Boundary Board of Yamhill County, Oregon, seeking to organize a union high school district, including elementary school districts Nos. 4, 20, 25, 33, 49 and 94 in Yamhill county. Thereafter, and on November 2, 1931, at an election held in the proposed union high school district, 210 votes were cast in favor of the organization and 50 against it. School District No. 94 was the only one in which a majority of the votes cast was against the organization. After canvassing the votes the district boundary board declared that Amity Union High School District No. 5 was regularly organized.

It is alleged in the pleadings that School District No. 94 has been generally known as the Grand Island School District. The litigants assume, and the case has been presented on the assumption, that District No. 94 is a "district consisting of an island" within the meaning of those words as used in the 1945 amendment above quoted.

At an election held on April 9, 1945, in School District No. 94, there were cast 32 votes in favor of and 9 against that district's withdrawal from the Amity Union High School District. On or about May 14, 1945, at another election held in School District No. 94, a majority vote was cast in favor of the annexation of that district to Dayton Union High School District No. 4, and on May 23 of that year the District Boundary Board of Yamhill County declared that School District No. 94 had been annexed to that union high school district.

The effect of the decision of the circuit court is to invalidate the attempted withdrawal of School District No. 94 from the Amity Union High School District, and its attempted consolidation with the Dayton Union High School District. On the oral argument in this court it was contended by the defendants for the first time that this action is in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding to test the validity of the organization of two union high school districts, and that such a proceeding can be maintained only by, or on the relation of, the attorney general or the proper district attorney, on the ground that such matters are primarily of public interest. In support of this contention defendants cite and rely upon the case of State ex rel. v. School District No. 23, 179 Or. 441, 172 P. (2d) 655. That was a quo warranto proceeding brought on the relation of a taxpayer to test the validity of the consolidation of school districts. It was there decided that a "de facto municipal corporation, however, is not exempt from attack in quo warranto proceedings brought directly against it by the state or upon the relation of a private person".

School District No. 1 v. School District No. 45, 148 Or. 554, 37 P. (2d) 873, was a proceeding brought by one school district against another for an adjudication as to the validity of the consolidation of the two districts. It was urged there also that only the state in a direct proceeding could attack the validity of the formation of a school district, and therefore the proceeding could not be maintained by the plaintiff in that case. This court, however, held to the contrary. See also in this connection Chestnut v. Reynolds, 291 Ky. 231, 163 S.W. (2d) 456.

Section 6-602, O.C.L.A., which is a part of the declaratory judgments act, provides that any person whose rights are affected by any statute may have its validity determined. It is alleged that plaintiff is a property owner in School District No. 94, and that he will "suffer...