Wilbois v. Town of Runnells
| Decision Date | 02 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 33963 |
| Citation | 187 N.W. 855,193 Iowa 789 |
| Parties | JOHN A. WILBOIS et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF RUNNELLS et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.--HUBERT UTTERBACK, Judge.
SUIT in equity, to enjoin payment by the consolidated school district of Runnells for the expense of constructing a sidewalk. The material facts are stated in the opinion. On trial to the court, the petition was dismissed, and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Brammer Seevers & Hurlburt, for appellants.
Brockett Strauss & Shaw and Clark, Byers & Hutchinson, for appellees.
The recently established consolidated school district of Runnells includes all the territory of the town of Runnells, together with a considerable area of rural property. Pending the process of organization, the matter of selecting a site for the schoolhouse became a matter of public interest. A location was finally selected at a point about 40 rods north of the then existing north boundary line of the town, and bordering on its west side upon an extension of Brown Street, in Runnells. It was then the general understanding that the north boundary of Runnells was to be moved north, so as to include the schoolhouse within the town. Later, however, the owners of the land lying immediately south of the school site became dissatisfied with the situation, and petitioned the court to exclude such lands from the corporation. The record before us does not make it clear or explicit as to the result of such proceedings, but it seems to be taken for granted by counsel that the exclusion was accomplished, and that the north boundary of the corporation was moved a quarter of a mile south of its original location, thus increasing the gap between the school grounds and the town boundary from a matter of 40 rods to 120 rods. The extension of Brown Street which borders upon the school grounds was not paved, and not provided with a walk on either side; and while it was still supposed that the school property was within the corporate limits of Runnells, the question of providing a walk on Brown Street, some 2,011 feet to the south, was agitated, and the town authorities seem to have initiated a movement to order its construction. Owing, however, to the confusion resulting from the dispute or uncertainty occasioned by the proceeding to relocate the boundary, and from the objections by Park and Erskin, the owners of the land on either side of the proposed improvement, this movement appears to have been halted; and an effort was then made to obtain an agreement between the town, the school district, and property owners by which the walk should be constructed and the expense distributed or apportioned between them. Before entering into such agreement, the school board consulted the state superintendent of public instruction as to its powers and duties in the matter, and was advised that such a compromise was within the scope of its powers. A written contract, described as "a compromise and agreement," was thereupon entered into between the town, the school district, and Park and Erskin, by which, after reciting at considerable length the necessity of the walk to proper access to the school, and to avoid the increased expense to the district for transportation of pupils and teachers from the town to the schoolhouse, and other advantages to be derived from such walk, it was provided that the town should forthwith proceed to construct the walk from the northern terminus of the existing walk on Brown Street, at or near the corporation line, to a point opposite the west entrance to the school building, the entire cost of such walk to be borne primarily by the town. Park and Erskin, on their part, each agreed to pay the sum of $ 200 into the town treasury, in lieu of any special assessment on their farm lands. They further agreed that the proceeding in court upon their application to have their lands severed from the corporation should be held in abeyance until after the construction of the walk was completed. Subject to the payment of said sum of $ 400, the remainder of the cost and expense incurred by the town in providing the walk was to be "assessed to and paid by the district as a proper and agreed apportionment of the expense of such construction according to benefits." It was further provided that, upon completion of the walk and payment of the expense as provided, the district shall "stand exonerated from any duty to provide transportation to the school building for pupils or teachers residing or boarding within the incorporated territory of said town."
Acting upon this agreement, the town proceeded with the construction of the walk. Park and Erskin paid into the town...
To continue reading
Request your trial