Ward v. Consolidated School District
Decision Date | 21 June 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 28411.,28411. |
Citation | 7 S.W.2d 689 |
Parties | VERNON B. WARD ET AL., Appellants, v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 146 OF NODAWAY COUNTY ET AL. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Nodaway Circuit Court. — Hon. John M. Dawson, Judge.
TRANSFERRED TO KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS.
A.M. Tibbels, A.F. Harvey and Shinabarger, Blagg & Sigler for appellants.
Cook & Cummins and Randall Wilson for respondents.
This is an action whereby respondents sought to enjoin the holding of a special election in defendant school district of Nodaway County to vote upon a proposition to issue bonds for $75,000 for the purpose of erecting a school building in said district. The trial court found the issues for defendant and denied the injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs. Thereupon plaintiffs were granted an appeal to this court.
In substance the petition alleged that the holding of such election was unauthorized because the reasons actuating the officers of the school district, in attempting to change the boundary lines between such school districts and the adjoining school district, constituted a legal fraud upon the residents of said district and because the procedural steps taken to effect such change of boundary were not legally sufficient to effectuate such purpose and the change in boundary lines was not in fact thereby accomplished. It is also alleged that the notices of the bond election were insufficient, etc. The petition in the record is very lengthy and involved and we see no necessity for setting out even the substance of its numerous allegations.
The answer included a general denial and contained also allegations of the facts relied upon by the defendants as compliance with the statutes defining the procedure in such cases. The reply was a general denial of the matters set forth in the answer.
At the argument of the case in this court, we intimated some doubt of our appellate jurisdiction. Subsequent examination of the record has convinced us that we do not have jurisdiction of the appeal. The parties have not challenged our appellate jurisdiction, but the fact of such jurisdiction is the first question for our determination in all cases of this sort. Without such appellate jurisdiction, we have no right to express any opinion upon the merits of the case.
The only possible ground upon which it might be urged that we have jurisdiction is that the amount in dispute in the case exceeds $7500. At the argument in this court, counsel suggested that the face value of the bonds constituted the amount in dispute. Such is not the test. No bonds have been voted. At most there is involved only the right of the district to hold an election to vote upon the proposition of whether or not the issuance of $75,000 face value of bonds shall be authorized. Such authority might be granted. It might be withheld, for the fact is disclosed by the record that five similar elections have been held and the proposition defeated each time.
We have many times announced the proper rule for testing our appellate jurisdiction, when such jurisdiction depends solely upon the amount involved and the suit is not for a money judgment. In Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. St. Louis Smelting & Ref. Co., 48 Mo. App. 634, Judge ROMBAUER said:
That case was an injunction suit and it was held that the St. Louis Court of Appeals did not have appellate jurisdiction because the value of the defendant's property, which was about $400,000, would practically be destroyed, if a perpetual injunction should be granted. The cost of changes in defendant's plant would have been greater than $2500, which, at that time, was the limit of the monetary jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeals. The injunction was denied. The loss to the defendant had the injunction been granted seems to have been there used as the test of the amount involved.
In another case (Kitchell v. Railway Co., 146 Mo. 455, 48 S.W. 448), where the injunction was denied, the test seems to have been the value of the right claimed by the plaintiff. WILLIAMS. J., said:
(Italics in the opinion.)
The loss to the street railroad company had the injunction been granted does not appear. It would doubtless have greatly exceeded $2500, because it would have been restrained from operating its street railroad in front of the plaintiff's premises. The amount of such loss apparently was not considered by the court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Emerson Elec. Mfg. Co. v. City of Ferguson, 48630
...would give us jurisdiction, such a holding would be dicta, at best. The same may be said of: Ward v. Consolidated School District No. 136 of Nodaway County, 320 Mo. 385, 7 S.W.2d 689, in which (a suit to enjoin a school bond election) some reference was made to the possible taxes which plai......
-
Cooper v. School Dist. of Kansas City
...to those in which the bonds have not been voted and the suit is to enjoin the holding of the election, Ward v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 146, 320 Mo. 385, 7 S.W.2d 689, and neither is it comparable to those in which some future or contingent liability is involved. National Surety Corp. ......
-
Finley v. Smith
...has been approved, adopted and applied by the Supreme Court with varying results in both divisions and in banc. Ward v. Consolidated School Dist., 320 Mo. 385, 7 S.W.2d 689; Gast Bank Note & Lithograph Co. v. Fennimore Ass'n, 147 Mo. 557, 49 S.W. 511; Garlichs Agency Co. v. Anderson, 284 Mo......
-
Ward v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 136 of Nodaway County
...7 S.W.2d 689 320 Mo. 385 Vernon B. Ward et al., Appellants, v. Consolidated School District No. 146 of Nodaway County et al No. 28411Supreme Court of MissouriJune 21, 1928 ... Appeal ... from Nodaway Circuit Court; Hon. John M. Dawson, ... ... Transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals ... A ... M. Tibbels, A. F. Harvey and ... ...