Wallace v. Independent School Dist. of Milford, Dickinson County
| Decision Date | 06 April 1911 |
| Parties | M. J. WALLACE and THE SCHOOL CORPORATION OF LAKEVILLE, Appellants, v. THE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MILFORD, DICKINSON COUNTY, IOWA, and Q. C. FULLER, E. E. HELDRIDGE, H. S. ABBOTT, C. C. CALKINS, C. M. COLDREN and C. F. MAUSS, Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Dickinson District Court.--HON. D. F. COYLE, Judge.
ACTION in equity to declare null and void the enlarged Independent School District of Milford; to enjoin the election of directors, and for other equitable relief. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the petition, and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
J. W Cory, for appellants.
Francis & Owen, for appellees.
Prior to the proceedings which are attempted to be set aside by this action, there were in four townships in Dickinson County, Iowa twenty-three sub-districts and two independent districts, to wit, the Independent District of Milford and the Independent District of Arnolds Park. In virtue of the provisions of section 2794a of the Code Supplement of 1907 more than one-third of the electors within the limits of a proposed new district petitioned the board of directors of the Independent District of Milford for the enlargement of said district and the consolidation thereof with certain subdistricts in the school township of Okoboji, Milford, and Lakeside and a part at least of the Independent District of Arnolds Park. The petition was examined and approved by the county superintendent and presented to the board of directors of the Independent District of Milford, which board at a special meeting held April 17, 1909, ordered that an election be held on April 29th of the same year, and that the secretary post notices thereof as required by law. These notices were posted, and an election was held on the designated day resulting in a vote of eighty-seven for the proposition and forty-five against. Appeal was taken to the county superintendent and also to the state superintendent, and on each appeal plaintiff and other objectors were defeated, and thereupon they commenced this action in equity to have all proceedings down to the date the suit was brought, to wit, September 6, 1909, declared null and void.
The state superintendent in deciding the appeal to him filed an opinion from which we copy the following:
Section 2794a, under which the board of directors of the Independent District of Milford acted, clearly makes it possible for any of its citizens at any time to circulate a petition, in which the boundaries of a proposed consolidated independent district are indicated, and when such petition is signed by the required number of resident voters and approved of by the county superintendent, and presented to the board of directors of the corporation in which the largest number of voters reside, such board of directors must within ten days call an election, if all the conditions imposed by section 2794a have been complied with. The contention of counsel for appellants that such election can be called only at the annual meeting of the board is at variance with the language and at variance with the clear intent of section 2794a. The petition may be presented at any time and when presented in proper form the election must be ordered within ten days thereafter, but no district formed as the result of such election can begin its corporate existence until the 1st day of July following the election of its board of directors, as provided by section 2794a. The statute in question places very grave responsibility upon the county superintendent. It is his duty to weigh carefully the interests of all the children in the corporation affected and satisfy himself that no child will, in the formation of the proposed district, have his rights to school privileges taken away or be so situated because of the change as in effect to deprive him of such privileges. When the county superintendent either gives or withholds his approval to the petition, he has passed upon the question in so far as the law grants him jurisdiction. He may not subsequently review upon appeal the question he has already determined. When the petition is presented to the proper board of directors, the board must determine: (1) Whether it contains the signatures of at least one-third of the legal voters residing on the territory of the proposed district. (2) Whether it is approved by the county superintendent. (3) Whether the territory of the proposed independent district comprises not less than sixteen government sections of land. (4) Whether the remaining territory of any corporation from which the territory is taken is contiguous or continuous. (5) Whether as the result of the change any corporation is not reduced below four government sections. If these five questions are answered in the affirmative, the board must proceed within ten days to call an election as prescribed by law. From this action which is not discretionary with the board, no appeal will lie to the county superintendent. If the board has proceeded without warrant of law, or committed errors as to the facts, a restraining order from the district court will be the proper remedy.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial