Weiderholt v. Lisbon Special School District No. 19
| Decision Date | 10 December 1918 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court of Ransom County, Allen, J.
Plaintiffs appeal.
Order reversed.
Reversed.
Kvello & Adams, for respondents.
It is no reason why certiorari will not lie in such cases because there may be matters outside the record of which complaint is made. Re Dance, 2 N.D. 184, 33 Am. St. Rep. 768, 49 N.W. 733; Code Civ. Proc. art. 2, chap. 34; Comp. 1887, §§ 5507 to 5516; Comp. Laws, 1913, §§ 8448, 8451; Requisites of Writ; 6 Cyc. 827, 830; Stumpf v. San Louis Obispo County (Cal.) 82 Am. St. Rep. 350.
The evidence may be exercised to determine the jurisdiction of the inferior court or tribunal. 6 Cyc. 806, 807, 827, 830; People v. Knowles, 47 N.Y. 415; State v Neosho, 57 Mo.App. 192; Stumpf v. San Louis Obispo County (Cal.) 82 Am. St. Rep. 350.
If the facts and errors are extrinsic and do not appear of record they may be shown aliunde, and especially to show fraud. Ibid.
The court may order a reference to determine disputed facts. 6 Cyc. 761, 762, note 89, 790, 831; Wistar v. Ollis, 77 Pa. 291; People v. Brooks, 40 How. Pr. 165; People v. Cholwell, 6 Abb. Pr. 151; State ex rel. Johnson v. Clark, 21 N.D. 517, 131 N.W. 715; State ex rel. Dollard v. Hughes County, 1 S.D. 292, 46 N.W. 1127.
An injunction will not be granted where relief may be obtained by appeal or certiorari. 22 Cyc. title "Injunctions" 775; Erickson v. Cass County, 11 N.D. 494, 92 N.W. 841.
The complaint contains allegations of all necessary facts, and the court will take cognizance of the various legal steps intervening between the various acts of the board, and the presumption that the board has complied with the law will prevail, unless this is rebuttable in an action of a collateral nature, such as this one. Cleveland School Dist. v. Hannaford Special School Dist. 20 N.D. 393.
It is not necessary to have stated within the petition that the signers constitute a majority of the qualified electors. State ex rel. Little v. Langlie, 5 N.D. 594, 32 L.R.A. 723, 67 N.W. 958; Lawrence County v. Hall, 70 Ind. 469; Currie v. Paulson, 43 Minn. 411, 45 N.W 854; Ellis v. Karl, 7 Neb. 381; Bennett v Hetherington, 41 Iowa 142; Baker v. Louisa County, 40 Iowa 226; Redfield School Dist. v. Redfield Independent School Dist. 14 S.D. 229, 85 N.W. 180; State ex rel. Laird v. Gang, 10 N.D. 331, 87 N.W. 5; Pine Tree Lumber Co. v. Fargo, 12 N.D. 360, 96 N.W. 357; Nofire v. United States, 164 U.S. 657, 41 L.Ed. 588, 17 S.Ct. 212; Delaney v. Schuette, 49 Wis. 366, 5 N.W. 796; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Denver, 19 C.C.A. 139, 36 U.S. App. 499, 72 F. 336; State ex rel. Little v. Langlie, 5 N.D. 594, 32 L.R.A. 723, 67 N.W. 958; School Dist. v. Thompson, 27 N.D. 459, 146 N.W. 727.
The presumption is that public officials have done and do their duty.
M. O. Thompson and Charles S. Ego, for appellants.
The complaint does not contain a statement of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The facts in many respects show that the steps prerequisite and necessary to give the board jurisdiction and authority to act had been taken, such as a proper petition, notice, and then proper findings of board. Red River Valley Brick Co. v. Grand Forks, 27 N.D. 8; State ex rel. Johnson v. Clark, 21 N.D. 526; Lutien v. Kewaunee (Wis.) 126 N.W. 662; Glaspel v. Jamestown, 11 N.D. 86; State v. Holcomb (Kan.) 149 P. 684; Hughes v. Ewing (Cal.) 28 P. 1067; Doherty v. Ransom County, 5 N.D. 1; Glaspel v. Jamestown, 11 N.D. 86; State v. Budge, 14 N.D. 532; Morton v. Holes, 17 N.D. 154; 8 Cyc. 830.
The power to annex territory is legislative. Ibid.
Such power can be sustained in municipal corporations only on the theory that it operates locally and for self-government purposes. Ibid.
School districts are public corporations for school purposes. Comp. Laws 1913, § 1140; State ex rel. Laird v. Gang, 10 N.D. 331; Stern v. Fargo, 18 N.D. 289; State ex rel. Minihan v. Nyers, 19 N.D. 804; Pronovost v. Brunette, 36 N.D. 288; 35 Cyc. 899, 901.
Being political agencies of the state, organized for a single purpose, their powers are herewith, and when a statute confers arbitrary power it must be strictly construed. Ibid.
School boards have no powers excepting those expressly granted and those necessarily implied from those which are granted. Ibid.
Injunction is the proper remedy to determine the validity of these annexation proceedings in so far as they form the basis for levying taxes. Red River Valley Brick Co. v. Grand Forks, 27 N.D. 8; State ex rel. Ladd v. District Ct. 17 N.D. 285; Bartells Oil Co. v. Jackman, 29 N.D. 236; State v. Fisk, 15 N.Y. 219-225; Forsythe v. Hammond, 68 F. 774; High, Inj. § 1254; 5 Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 321, 322; Payne v. English (Cal.) 21 P. 952; Nelson v. State Bd. (Ky) 50 L.R.A. 383; People v. Canal Bd. 55 N.Y. 390.
Jurisdiction of such boards as defendant may be disputed at any time. Rees v. Wildman, 35 A. 1047; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34; Wales v. Willard, 2 Mass. 124; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457; Earle v. Mcveigh, 91 U.S. 503; Spoors v. Cowan, 44 Ohio St. 497; Laughlin v. Volegsong (Ohio) 38 N.E. 111; Pierce v. Bowers (Tenn.) 8 Baxt. 353; Withers v. Patterson (Tex.) 86 Am. Dec. 643; Wade v. Hancock 76 Va. 621; Roberts v. Hickory etc., Co. (W. Va.) 41 S.E. 351; 15 Standard Proc. 415 et seq.; Roderigas v. East River Sav. Inst. 63 N.Y. 460; Wenzer v. Howland, 10 Wis. 8; Rogers v. Cady (Cal.) 38 P. 81; Peck v. School Dist. 21 Wis. 521; Mora v. Kuzac, 21 La.Ann. 754; Heinlin v. Heilbron, 30 P. 8.
When the statute prescribes some fact which must exist as a condition precedent to jurisdiction, such fact must exist before there can be jurisdiction. The board cannot arbitrarily adjudge the existence of such fact. Ibid.
It is the fact, and not the record evidence of the fact, which gives the jurisdiction. Ibid.
Any existing presumption that such boards have done their duty is a rebuttable presumption. Chamberlayne, Ev. P 1202a; Re Sheriff (N. J.) 69 A. 305; McLean v. Farmers Highline Canal, etc., Co. (Colo.) 98 P. 16; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Dodge County (Neb.) 117 N.W. 468; Hahn v. Kelly (Cal.) 94 Am. Dec. 742; Tompert v. Lithgow, 1 Bush, 176; Carron v. Martin (N.J.L.) 69 Am. Dec. 584; 15 Standard Proc. 434, et seq.
Presumed jurisdiction only exists until the contrary is shown. Ibid.
Certiorari is not the proper remedy in this case, as the writ would have brought up only the record of defendant board. Complaint of many matters de hors the record is here made. Comp. Laws, § 8445; Re Dance, 2 N.D. 184; Red River Valley Brick Co. v. Grand Forks, 27 N.D. 8; Re Pedrorena (Cal.) 22 P. 71; Haven v. County Comrs. (Mass.) 29 N.E. 1083; Hackett v. Brown (Mich.) 87 N.W. 102; People v. Feitner (N.Y.) 66 N.E. 1114; Lippincott v. Strout Co. (Del.) 79 A. 215; State v. Thorne (Wis.) 87 N.W. 797; State v. King (La.) 23 So. 992; Porter v. Steele (Idaho) 63 P. 187; Comrs. v. Smith (Ill.) 75 N.E. 396; Wheeler v. Probate Ct. (R. I.) 49 A. 574; Hatlestad v. Court (Iowa) 114 N.W. 628; Ward v. Board (Mo.) 36 S.W. 648; Alexander v. Archer (Nev.) 24 P. 373; Re Road in Bern & Penn Twp. (Pa.) 17 A. 265; see also note in 40 Am. St. Rep. 30.
The record as returned imparts verity and is conclusive of all the facts stated therein. Ibid.
Under the facts admitted by the demurrer, the annexation proceedings were void, and certiorari will not issue in such cases. Bass v. Milledgeville (Ga.) 50 S.E. 59; Sawyer v. Blakely (Ga.) 58 S.E. 399; People v. Moore, 1 N.Y.S. 405; Dison v. Cincinnati, 14 Ohio 240; State v. Chittenden (Wis.) 107 N.W. 500; Lutien v. Kewaunee (Wis.) 126 N.W. 662.
The statute fixes as a prerequisite to jurisdiction, that a petition signed by the required number of citizens and taxpayers of the territory, must be presented to the board. Appellants allege that no such petition was presented and therefore there was no jurisdiction. West End v. State (Ala.) 36 So. 423; Borchard v. Ventura County (Cal.) 77 P. 708; People v. Stratton (Colo.) 81 P. 245; People v. Pike (Ill.) 64 N.E. 393; Atty-Genl. v. Rice (Mich.) 31 N.W. 203; Yard v. Ocean Beach (N.J.L.) 5 A. 142; State ex rel. Lee v. Jenkins (Mo.) 25 Mo.App. 484; Kaiser v. Lawrence (Iowa) 8 N.W. 772; McGarahan v. Mining Co. 96 U.S. 316; Page v. Board, etc. (Cal.) 24 P. 607; People v. Linden (Cal.) 40 P. 115; Re Taylorport (Pa.) 13 A. 224; Darmouth Sav. Bank v. School Dist. 6 Dak. 332.
It is not essential to an allegation of fraud that the word "fraud" or "fraudulent" be used. The ultimate facts need only to be concisely set forth. Such is done here. Whittlesey v. Delaney, 73 N.Y. 571; Hicks v. Stevens, 11 N.E. 241; Morgan v. Hayes 1 Ohio Dec. 454; Lafayette Co. v. Neeley, 21 F. 738; Castle v. Bader, 23 Cal. 75; Hodgkins v. Dunham (Cal.) 103 P. 351; Sallies v. Johnson (Conn.) 81 A. 975, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 386; Parsons v. Barnes (Neb.) 135 N.W. 374; Benolkin v. Guthrie (Wis.) 87 N.W. 466; Warren v. Union Bank (N.Y.) 51 N.E. 1036; Parham v. Randolph (Miss.) 4 How. 435, 35 Am. Dec. 403; Andrews v. King County (Wash.) 23 P. 409; see also note 90 Am. Dec. 277; Indiana N. & T. Co. v. Glass Co. 75 N.E. 649; Railway Co. v. Stevens, 96 N.E. 493; Holcomb v. Noarman, 91 N.E. 625; Vukelis v. Virginia, 119 N.W. 509; Allen v. Coal Co. 115 P. 673; Silver Bow County v. Davies, 107 P. 673; Wallace v. Jones, 74 N.E. 576; Boelk v. Nolan, 107 P. 689; Trustees v. Hughes, 172 F. 206; Richardson v. El Paso Co. 118 P. 982; Soule v. Weatherby, 118 P. 833; Weber v. Lewis, 126 N.W. 105; White Bros. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial