Woolsey v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 09 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 5904. |
| Citation | 141 P. 436,43 Okla. 97,1914 OK 272 |
| Parties | WOOLSEY ET AL. v. NELSON ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under section 7701, Rev. Laws, 1910, relating to division of counties into school districts, etc., provides for the laying off of counties into school districts in the first instance and for changing such districts when the interests of the people may require it, by making them conform to existing topographical or physical conditions, and provides for an appeal from the action of the county superintendent to the board of county commissioners, and that their decision shall be final. Held, that said section does not authorize the county superintendent to wholly dissolve any district by incorporating two or more of said districts into a consolidated school district, and that the acts of the county superintendent are in their nature political, and no appeal lies from the action of the board of county commissioners to the district court.
Sections 7780 and 7781, Rev. Laws 1910, should be read and construed together. Said sections authorize the county superintendent to form school districts from one or more districts possessing the schoolhouse or other property to determine equitably the proportion of the present value of such schoolhouse or other property, and providing for the formation and alteration of, or refusal to form or alter school districts, any person or persons who feel aggrieved such person or persons may appeal to the board of county commissioners; and providing further that an appeal may be taken by either party or any person residing in the school district affected by such formation or alteration to the district court of the county. Held, that the acts authorized by these two sections, considered together, are in their nature quasi judicial, and that upon an appeal from the action of the county commissioners to the district court the district court has jurisdiction to try said matter de novo.
Evidence examined and found to be insufficient to entitle petitioners to the relief prayed for; and the court committed no error in sustaining a demurrer to the evidence introduced by petitioners in the trial of said cause de novo in said court.
Error from District Court, Kay County; W. M. Bowles, Judge.
A. B Woolsey and others petitioned the county superintendent to change the boundaries of a school district, and, from a judgment against the petitioners by the district court to which the matter was taken on appeal by James Nelson and others from the action of the county commissioners sustaining an alteration of the district by the county superintendent, petitioners bring error. Affirmed.
J. F. King, of Newkirk, for plaintiffs in error.
G. A. Chappell, of Newkirk, for defendants in error.
On June 26, 1909, common school districts Nos. 49, 50, and 51, of Kay county, were reorganized and consolidated into school district No. 1. Thereafter a petition was filed with the county superintendent, requesting that he change the boundaries of said consolidated school district so as to exclude therefrom territory formerly composing school district No. 51, and form such territory into a separate school district. Certain parties, feeling aggrieved by the action of the county superintendent, secured a temporary injunction in the district court of Kay county, which injunction was afterwards by the court dissolved. A petition in error was prosecuted from the order of the trial court, dissolving the temporary injunction, and this court affirmed the judgment. Evinger v. Duke, 130 P. 147. On April 10, 1913, the county superintendent, after due notice, heard the petition to change the boundaries of said district and granted the relief requested. On April 21, 1913, an appeal was prosecuted from the action of the county superintendent to the board of county commissioners by certain parties residing in the territory included in consolidated district No. 1. Such petition was signed by approximately one-half of the taxpayers and voters in said consolidated school district No. 1; and notice of said appeal was filed with the county superintendent in the manner provided by law. On the 6th day of May, 1913, the board of county commissioners heard the matter and sustained the county superintendent and ordered the alteration of said consolidated school district No. 1 in accordance with the petition. On the 8th day of May, 1913, notice of appeal was filed with the county clerk by Wm. Aupperle, James Nelson, Elmer Gabriel, and Fred Lauson, appealing from the action of the board of county commissioners to the district court. Said appeal was prosecuted within the time and in the manner provided by law. Said cause was tried by the court de novo, and judgment rendered against the petitioners, which had the effect to reverse and set aside the order of the county commissioners, as well as that made by the county superintendent. Motion for new trial was filed within the time provided by law, overruled, exceptions taken, and the cause is now before this court upon petition in error with original case-made attached, whereby plaintiffs seek to reverse the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff in error sets out in his petition the following assignments:
These various assignments raise only two propositions for our consideration: First, did the district court have jurisdiction to hear and determine said matter upon an appeal from the action of the county commissioners? Second, did the court commit prejudicial error in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence of plaintiffs in error? The first question raised involves the construction of sections 7701 and 7780 and 7781, Rev. Laws, 1910, which sections are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial