Wood v. Farmer

• Decision Date: 14 October 1886
• Citation: 69 Iowa 533,29 N.W. 440
• Parties: WOOD v. FARMER AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

69 Iowa 533

29 N.W. 440

WOOD

v.FARMER AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 14, 1886.

Appeal from Poweshiek district court.

Mandamus to compel the officers of a district township to levy a tax to be expended in building a school-house in a subdistrict, and to maintain an additional school in a village situated in the subdistrict. There was a judgment requiring the tax to be levied. Both parties appeal.Thos. A. Cheshire, for defendant.

Harris & Lyman, for plaintiff.

BECK, J.

1. The petition alleges that the plaintiff is a resident and taxpayer of subdistrict No. 7, in the district township of Pleasant, having children of lawful age to attend school. He lives in a village which is one and a quarter miles from the school-house. He alleges that his children are too young to go the distance required to attend the school kept in the school-house. It is further shown that the electors of the subdistrict at their regular annual meeting on the second day of March, 1885, voted that the amount of $800 was required to build an additional school-house in the village. This action was certified to the next annual meeting of the electors of the district township, who refused to vote the tax for $800, as determined by the electors of the subdistrict, and the directors refused to certify the tax to the board of supervisors for the reason that the notice required by law had not been given for the meeting of the electors of the subdistrict, and that the meeting did not continue a sufficient length of time to allow all of the electors to vote upon the resolution adopted by the meeting. They also refused to establish a school in the village.

The plaintiff appealed to the county superintendent, who affirmed the action of the directors in refusing to certify the tax to the board of supervisors, on the ground that the meeting of the electors of the subdistrict had not continued for the time required by law; but reversed the action refusing to establish a school in the village, and ordered that a school should be maintained in the village for three months during the summer of 1885.

Both parties applied to the superintendent of public instruction, who reversed the decision of the county superintendent; holding that the directors were authorized to refuse to certify the tax to the supervisors of the county, and affirming the decision ordering the school to be kept in the village. The plaintiff prays that a mandamus may be issued compelling the directors to perform the acts required by the decision of the superintendent of public instruction.

Objections involving the right of plaintiff to recover upon the case made by him were raised by demurrer and answer to the petition, and by demurrer to the answer. The pleadings need be no more particularly mentioned, as it is sufficient to state the objections separately, when we come to this consideration in the discussion of the case.

The district court entered a judgment, ordering the directors of the district township to certify the amount voted by the subdistrict for the school-house to the board of supervisors.

2. It is first insisted that the electors of the subdistrict had no power to vote a tax, or to determine the amount necessary to be expended for school-house purposes. The decision of the question here raised involves the construction of Code, § 1778, which is in the following language:

“Sec. 1778. They [the board of directors of the district] shall apportion any tax voted by the district township meeting for school-house fund among the several subdistricts in such a manner as justice and equity may require, taking as the basis of such apportionment the respective amounts previously levied upon said subdistricts for the use of such fund: provided, that if the electors of one or more subdistricts, at their last annual meeting, shall have voted to raise a sum for school-house purposes greater than that granted by the electors at the last annual meeting of the district township, they shall estimate the amount of such excess on such subdistrict or subdistricts, and cause the secretary to certify the same within five days thereafter to the board of supervisors, who shall, at the time of levying taxes for county purposes, levy the per centum of such excess on the taxable property of the subdistrict asking the same: provided, that not more than fifteen mills on the dollar shall be levied on taxable property of any subdistrict for any one year for school-house purposes.”

Code, § 1717, p. 3, confers authority...