From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reorganized School Dist. No. R-8 v. Robertson

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1
Dec 14, 1953
262 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. 1953)

Opinion

Nos. 43539, 43544.

December 14, 1953.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, LAFAYETTE COUNTY.

C. H. O. Leimbrock, Martin J. Ward, Robert L. Rasse, Marshall, for appellants.

H. Townsend Hader, Lexington, for respondents, Edward R. Scott, Sweet Springs, of counsel.


These consolidated actions involve the annexation of the Grand Pass Consolidated School District No. 2 of Saline County by the Reorganized School District No. R-8 of Lafayette County. In one suit, the R-8 district sought a pro forma decree validating its proposed issue of $147,000 school bonds. Section 108.310- 108.350 (all section references are to both RSMO 1949 and V.A.M.S. unless otherwise indicated). The other suit was a quo warranto proceeding in which the four relators, resident landowners and taxpayers of the Grand Pass district territory, challenged the authority of the R-8 district and its directors over that territory. Section 531.010. The trial court sustained the validity of the annexation election held in the Grand Pass district on March 3, 1950, dismissed intervenors' petition in the first case and found for the district and its directors in the other. The four intervenors-relators appealed.

We have jurisdiction of these appeals as the record affirmatively shows that the amount in dispute exceeds $7,500. Art. V, § 3, Const., 2 V.A.M.S., p. 31; Cooper v. School District of Kansas City, 362 Mo. 49, 239 S.W.2d 509, 511[3-5].

The Grand Pass district in southwest Saline County adjoined the R-8 district in southeast Lafayette County. On March 3, 1950, the qualified voters of the Grand Pass district voted (131 to 29) to attach all of that district to the R-8 district for school purposes, and the directors of the R-8 district unanimously voted to annex, and to extend the R-8 district boundaries to include the territory in, the Grand Pass district. It was stipulated that the Lafayette County Board of Education did not submit to the state board of education "for decision a plan of attaching" the Grand Pass district territory to the R-8 district; and that the election in the Grand Pass district "was called and held without the joint consent, participation and cooperation of the respective Saline and Lafayette County Boards of Education" and "without official sanction of the state board of education." (Apparently, the annexation was not opposed by either board as violative of any "plan" or "revised plan" of reorganization of school districts in either county under the 1947 school district reorganization law hereinafter discussed. See Willard Reorganized School District No. 2 of Greene County v. Springfield Reorganized School District No. 12 of Greene County, Mo.App., 248 S.W.2d 435; State ex rel. Corder School District No. R-3 v. Oetting, Mo.App., 245 S.W.2d 157.)

On March 11, 1952, the qualified voters of the R-8 district authorized the directors to incur indebtedness and issue bonds therefor in the amount of $147,000, and to levy a special tax on all tangible property in the district for building purposes, including the repair of and an addition to the building in Grand Pass. Thereafter, the R-8 district directors authorized to be issued the $147,000 school bonds instantly involved.

Determination of the validity of the annexation — the sole issue here — hinges upon the construction of certain statutory provisions relating to school districts. For a general summary of the statutes involved, see State ex rel. Corder School Dist. No. R-3 v. Oetting, Mo.App., 245 S.W.2d 157.

The annexation proceedings were had under Section 165.300, the applicable provisions of which are: "Whenever an entire school district * * * whether * * it be a common school district, or a city, town or consolidated school district, which adjoins any city, town, consolidated or village school district * * * desires to be attached thereto for school purposes", a special election shall be held in the former district for that purpose; if the majority of the votes cast "favor such annexation," that fact is certified to the board of the other district; if a majority of the members of that board "favor such annexation, the boundary lines of such" annexing district "shall from that date be changed so as to include" the territory of the annexed district; the board shall notify the clerk of the "district which has been annexed, in whole or in part, of its action"; and "in case an entire district is thus annexed," property of the annexed district passes to the annexing district.

Appellants do not contend that the proceedings did not comply with Section 165.300. They say that the proceedings were void: Because "effected by actions not initiated by or under the authority of, and without the joint consent, participation and cooperation of, the Saline and Lafayette County Boards of Education, and without the official sanction of the state board of education"; and because a "reorganized school district has no authority to annex another entire school district."

Appellants first argue that the 1947 school district reorganization law, Sections 165.657-165.707 (under which the R-8 district was organized) requires that the annexation have been initiated and approved by the Saline and Lafayette County Boards of Education; and that the voters of the R-8 district were entitled to vote on the proposal. They point to Section 165.673, providing that the county board of education shall "continue to study the school system of the county and propose subsequent reorganization plans as conditions warrant" and "cooperate with boards of adjoining counties in the solution of common organization problems, and submit to the state board of education for final decision any and all organization questions on which the cooperating boards fail to agree." However, as the instant annexation was not a reorganization of either district under the 1947 law, approval of the proceedings by the two county boards, respectively, was not necessary. See State ex rel. Corder School District No. R-3 v. Oetting, Mo.App., 245 S.W.2d 157; Willard Reorganized School District No. 2 of Greene County v. Springfield Reorganized School District No. 12 of Greene County, Mo.App., 248 S.W.2d 435. By the same token, the annexation was not required by law to be submitted to the state board of education (under Section 165.677) or voted upon by the voters of the R-8 district territory (under Section 165.680).

Nor is there in the 1947 law any language that even suggests that a "reorganized" district is excluded from the express, unambiguous provisions of Section 165.300 that, upon a majority vote of the directors of the annexing district — be it a common, consolidated, town or city district (Section 165.010 so classifies school districts) — "the boundary lines of such" annexing district "shall from that date be changed so as to include said territory" of the district annexed. Appellants argue that annexation by a district "reorganized" under the 1947 law is prohibited by Section 165.707 providing that "changes of boundary lines and disorganization" of "enlarged" districts "may be effected as now or hereafter provided by section 165.263 to 165.373"; that among the sections which Section 165.707 thus makes applicable to "reorganized" school districts, only one, Section 165.293, relates to boundary lines changes. (Section 165.293 makes applicable to town, city and consolidated school districts the provisions of Section 165.170 relating to changes of boundary lines of common school districts. Section 165.170, dealing with changes of "the boundary lines of two or more districts", is not applicable to the instant annexation. See State, at inf. of Taylor ex rel. Schwerdt v. Reorganized School District R-3, Warren County, Mo.App., 257 S.W.2d 262, 265. We may note that under Section 165.170 boundary lines changes also automatically follow a favorable vote in the districts affected.) However, appellants' argument overlooks: That the annexation statute, Section 165.300, is within the group of statutes which Section 165.707 expressly makes applicable to "reorganized" districts as to boundary lines changes, viz., Sections 165.263-165.373; and that Section 165.300 contains provisions relating to boundary lines changes, viz., that the boundary lines of the annexing district "shall from that date be changed so as to include" the territory of the district annexed. Thus Section 165.707, by express reference, makes applicable to "reorganized" districts the provisions of Section 165.300 relating to boundary lines changes resulting from entire annexations as well as the provisions of Section 165.293 relating to boundary lines changes of two or more continuing districts.

Appellants argue: "Annexation is entirely different from boundary lines changes; the mention of the latter in Section 165.707 is conclusive of the legislative intent to exclude the former under the expression unis rule; it is for the legislature to make the provisions of the annexation statute applicable to districts reorganized under the 1947 law." However, consideration, in the light of the established principles of statutory construction, of the school district organization and reorganization laws in their entirety compels the conclusion that the legislature did make the annexation statute applicable to "reorganized" school districts. "It has been said many times it is elementary in construing statutes that, if possible, effect must be given to every word, clause, sentence, paragraph, and section of a statute so that one section, or part, will not contradict, conflict with or destroy another; and it is presumed the legislature intended every part and section of a law to have effect and be operative." State ex rel. St. Louis Die Casting Corp. v. Morris, 358 Mo. 1170, 219 S.W.2d 359, 362[4, 5]. "The meaning of statutes and particularly the meaning of our school statutes may not be found in a single sentence but in all their parts and their relation to the end in view or to the general purpose." State ex inf. Kamp ex rel. Rodgers v. Pretended Consolidated School District No. 1 of Montgomery County, 359 Mo. 639, 223 S.W.2d 484, 488[5].

We note that, in the 1947 law, the legislature did not expressly exclude the application of the statute to annexation by "reorganized" districts. We again note the 1947 law's inclusion by reference hereinbefore pointed out. Which brings us to the absence of an express inclusion in the 1947 law. The expressio unis "maxim states an auxiliary rule of statutory construction which is sometimes followed and sometimes held inapplicable, depending on the facts." State ex rel. Fawkes v. Bland, 357 Mo. 634, 210 S.W.2d 31, 33, 34[2]. The purpose of the rule is "to ascertain the intention of the lawmakers", and "must be applied with caution." Springfield City Water Co. v. City of Springfield, 353 Mo. 445, 182 S.W.2d 613, 618[3]. We have studied appellants' cited cases and find them inapplicable for two reasons — the hereinbefore mentioned inclusion by reference and the legislative history of the annexation statute, particularly after the enactment of the 1947 law.

The language of the annexation statute as to automatic extension of the annexing district's boundary lines is substantially the same as it was in 1889 Section 8097, RSMo 1889. (At least two earlier statutes provided for automatic extension. 1868 Laws, p. 163; 1885 Laws, p. 248.) The statute was Section 9342 RSMo 1929 when the 1931 school law (1931 Laws, p. 334) was enacted. Section 11 of the 1931 law provided for boundary lines changes by reference to revised statutes which included said Section 9342 RSMo 1929.

Section 11 of the 1931 act (now Section 165.707) became Section 10452 RSMo 1939, from which Section 15 of the 1947 law was obviously taken. 1947 Laws, Vol. II, p. 377. Thus, when the legislature — using the language of Section 10452 RSMo 1939 — wrote Section 15 into the 1947 school district reorganization law, it was with knowledge of the existence of the annexation statute, then Section 10484 RSMo 1939, and of that statute's provisions relating to changes in the boundary lines of the annexing district. Indeed, the same general assembly that enacted the 1947 school district reorganization law amended, by repeal and re-enactment, the annexation statute itself, leaving intact the provisions relative to changes in the boundary lines of the annexing district. 1947 Laws, Vol. I, p. 507. (The emergency clause of that act referred to the inadequacy of the provisions "of law for annexation on their own initiative, in whole or in part, of certain types of school districts".) The 1951 and the 1953 legislatures made no changes in the provisions of Section 165.300.

All of which is most persuasive that the legislative intent was that the provisions of the annexation statute were applicable to annexation by a "reorganized" district. The St. Louis Court of Appeals recently ruled that the statute was applicable to the annexation by such a district of a part of an adjoining district. State, at inf. of Taylor ex rel. Schwerdt v. Reorganized School District R-3, Warren County, Mo.App., 257 S.W.2d 262, 265[1]. We hold that the instant proceedings, involving annexation of an entire district by a district "reorganized" under the 1947 school district reorganization law, and effected in compliance with the provisions of Section 165.300, were valid.

The judgments are affirmed.

VAN OSDOL and COIL, CC., concur.


The foregoing opinion by LOZIER, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

All concur.


Summaries of

Reorganized School Dist. No. R-8 v. Robertson

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1
Dec 14, 1953
262 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. 1953)
Case details for

Reorganized School Dist. No. R-8 v. Robertson

Case Details

Full title:REORGANIZED SCHOOL DIST. NO. R-8 OF LAFAYETTE COUNTY v. ROBERTSON ET AL…

Court:Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1

Date published: Dec 14, 1953

Citations

262 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. 1953)

Citing Cases

Zang v. City of St. Charles

(emphasis omitted)); Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue , 179 S.W.3d 266, 269-70 (Mo. banc 2005)…

State ex Inf. Wallach v. Zeibig

Thus the legislative intent, considered in connection with its prior knowledge of the existence of those…