Valley Center School Dist. No. 20 v. Hansberger
| Decision Date | 07 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | Civil 2364 |
| Citation | 237 P. 957,28 Ariz. 493 |
| Parties | VALLEY CENTER SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 20, C. E. HOBART AND W. I. HARMON, School Trustees of School District No. 20, and CLYFF NEWMAN, Appellants, v. ANNA D. HANSBERGER, County School Superintendent of Yuma County, Arizona, GEORGE DOWNY, ALLYN TUTTLE and FRANK LUCAS as the Board of Supervisors of Yuma County, Arizona, Appellees |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. F. L. Ingraham, Judge. Affirmed.
Mr William H. Westover, for Appellants.
Mr John W. Murphy, Attorney General, and Mr. A. R. Lynch, Mr Earl Anderson and Mr. Frank J. Duffy, Assistant Attorneys General, for Appellee.
This action was brought by the Valley Center School District No 20 against the county school superintendent and the board of supervisors of Yuma county to enjoin such public officers from giving force and effect to certain proceedings taken by the electors of said school district No. 20 for its annexation to Crane school district No. 13 of Yuma county.
The facts upon which the case was tried were stipulated and upon those same facts the case is presented here. It was stipulated that prior to June 2, 1924, a majority of the electors of school district No. 20 presented a petition to the board of trustees of school district No. 13, expressing a desire to be annexed thereto, and praying for such annexation, and that said petition was acted upon favorably by the said trustees of school district No. 13, and thereafter duly transmitted with the indorsement of said trustees to the county school superintendent of Yuma county, who placed the same upon file in her office and after fifteen days, to wit, on the sixteenth day after such transmittal, and after the reception of said petition, the said superintendent of schools made her records of boundaries to conform to said petition and notified the board of supervisors thereof; that no opposition to petition from the electors of school district No. 13 was received by or filed with the said superintendent of schools during the fifteen-day period next after the transmittal and reception of petition for annexation, and no such petition has ever been circulated or signed by electors of school district No. 13; that on June 9th, twenty-three of those who had signed the petition for annexation filed a request with the school superintendent for the removal of their names from such petition, and on the same day forty-six electors of school district No. 20, the same being a majority of the electors thereof, filed a protest with said superintendent against the annexation.
The lower court rendered judgment refusing injunctive relief and dismissed plaintiff's complaint. It is from such judgment that this appeal is taken.
Paragraph 2722 1/2, chapter 72, Laws of 1921, provides for the annexation of one school district to another and prescribes what shall be done to accomplish such act. It is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. De Concini v. City of Phoenix
...he has no right to withdraw his name after the petition has been finally acted upon and the ordinance adopted; Valley Center S.D. No. 20 v. Hansberger, 28 Ariz. 493, 237 P. 957. As to the twilight zone between, the authorities are not in The question of the right of a signer to withdraw his......
-
Harris v. Hoelzen
...the school district to whom petition is addressed, and their action of approval is final * * *.' Valley Center School District No. 20 v. Hansberger, 28 Ariz. 493, 496, 237 P. 957, 958 (1925). In the case of consolidation of school districts under A.R.S. §§ 15--409 and 15--410, the power to ......
-
Powers v. Carpenter
...may withdraw his signature, but must do so before the petition has been acted upon and adopted. Valley Center Sch. Dist. No. 20 v. Hansberger, 28 Ariz. 493, 496, 237 P. 957, 958 (1925). Thus, the common law rule is that the right to sign implies the right to withdraw, but the right is not ¶......
-
Barbe v. City of Lake Charles
...came too late after the body or officer to whom the petition was addressed had acted thereon. Valley Center School Dist. No. 20 et al. v. Hansberger, 28 Ariz. 493, 237 P. 957; McQueen v. City of Moscow et al., 28 Idaho 146, 152 P. 799; Fischer et al. v. Board of Sup'rs of Washtenaw County, ......