Opinion
November 25, 1930.
1. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL: Statute: Title: Act of 1913: Two Subjects. The title of the Act of 1913 which reads: "An Act to provide for the organization of consolidated schools and rural high schools and to provide state-aid for such schools," contained only one subject, which is clearly expressed. It dealt with two phases of the same subject, the organization of rural high-school districts and their aid by the State, but that is not a constitutional objection.
2. ____: ____: ____: Amendment: Reference to Act. The mere reference to an act in the title of the amending act is sufficient without other description of the subject-matter. The title to the amendatory Act of 1917 designating it as an amendment to the Act of 1913 was sufficient, since the Act of 1917 dealt exclusively with the subject-matter of the Act of 1913.
3. ____: Title of Act of 1921: Amendment of Section 11259: Proviso: Two Subjects. The title of the Act of 1913 contained only one subject. The Act of 1917 was an amendment to the Act of 1913, and added a germane proviso. The Act of 1913, with the proviso of 1917 added, appears in Revised Statutes 1919 as Section 11259. The Act of 1921 was an amendment to Section 11259, and its title so designates it: it added another germane proviso to said section. Held, that it was not necessary to mention the amendment of 1917 in the title of the Act of 1921, because the amendment of 1917 had already been incorporated in Section 11259, and the title did not contain two subjects, but only one, namely, An Act to amend Section 11259.
4. ____: Organization: Mandamus: Collateral Proceeding: Plats: Number of Children. The legality of the organization of a de facto consolidated school district cannot be raised in a mandamus suit to compel the extension of taxes against the lands in the common school district incorporated into the consolidated district. A mandamus suit is a collateral proceeding, and in such a suit the legality of the organization of the consolidated district, and of the steps leading up to its de facto existence, such as the sufficiency and the number of posted plats, and the number of children in each district, cannot be drawn in question.
Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County. — Hon. J.C. Kiskaddon, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Walter Wehrle for appellants.
(1) The plats posted and filed were lacking in uniformity, misleading and could not convey definite information to the parties whose lands were to be affected. State ex rel. Consolidated District v. Curtright, 205 S.W. 248. (2) The County Superintendent of Franklin County failed to file with the County Clerk of St. Louis County a copy of the petition signed by twenty-five qualified resident taxpayers. Sec. 11259, R.S. 1919; State v. Clardy, 267 Mo. 382, 185 S.W. 187. (3) The only record of the action of the County Superintendent required to be made is the provision of the law requiring him to file with the County Clerk the plat of the district and a copy of the petition signed by the twenty-one qualified resident taxpayers. State v. Ross, 286 S.W. 728. (4) In case the district as established includes territory in more than one county, a copy of the petition and plat is required to be filed with the County Clerk of each county. State ex rel. v. Glaves, 268 Mo. 105. (5) Sec. 11140, R.S. 1919, requires an enumeration of children of school age to be made, and the enumeration lists to be filed with the County Clerk; and the lists, when so filed, become a part of the record, and are, in the absence of fraud, the only legitimate evidence of the enumeration to be considered in a proceeding of this kind. State v. Ross, 286 S.W. 728. (6) The Act of 1921. Laws 1921, p. 654, is unconstitutional. It contains more than one subject which is not clearly expressed in the title. The title is misleading and not broad enough to cover the amendment to Sec. 11259, R.S. 1919, attempted to be embraced therein. Sec. 28, Art. 4, Mo. Constitution; State ex rel. Greene Co. v. Gideon, 210 S.W. 358; Williams v. Railroad, 233 Mo. 667; St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 616; State ex rel. v. Revelle, 257 Mo. 538. The title to the Act of 1921 is identical with the title to Sec. 11259, R.S. 1919; it does not contain any reference to the amendment to Section 11259. (7) Sec. 11207, R.S. 1919, absolutely prohibited the formation of this consolidated district — a district formed of territory lying in two counties, with no intervening stream.
Joseph C. McAtee, James Booth and Virginia Booth for respondents.
(1) The respondent district was formed under the provisions of Sec. 11259. R.S. 1919, and amendments thereto. Laws 1921, p. 655; State ex rel. Fry v. Lee, 284 S.W. 129. (2) Literal compliance with the law relative to consolidation of school districts is not required where non-compliance has caused no injury. State ex rel. Gentry v. Sullivan, 8 S.W.2d 616; State ex rel. v. Thompson, 250 S.W. 84; State ex rel. Thompson v. Pugh, 250 S.W. 599; State ex rel. Lincoln v. Bird, 244 S.W. 938. (3) The determination of the boundaries of the proposed consolidated district is one for the solemn discretion of the County Superintendent of Schools and the courts have uniformly refused to review his action. State ex rel. v. Scott, 264 S.W. 368. (4) The courts will take judicial notice of the effect of alternate rain and sunshine on posted notices and plats. State ex inf. Mansur ex rel. Fowler v. McKown, 290 S.W. 123. (5) Section 28. Article IV, of the Constitution of Missouri, was not violated by title to Act of 1921. Reference in a title to a prior statute is sufficient. Asel v. City of Jefferson, 287 Mo. 196. (6) The law presumes that the officers did their duty and that the petition, plats and notices were properly signed. And where as here, the oral testimony as to such signing was conflicting, the finding by the trial court for relators was conclusive. State ex inf. Mansur v. McKown, 290 S.W. 123. (7) It is sufficient under the statute if the area contained within the proposed district was fifty square miles or an enumeration of at least two hundred children of school age. Laws 1925, p. 331; State ex rel. Gentry v. Lamar, 291 S.W. 458. (8) The constitutional issue raised by appellants has been ruled adversely to them, and the statute under which the consolidation was effected has been ruled to be constitutional, and that issue is no longer a pending one. State ex inf. v. Morgan. 268 Mo. 265; State ex rel. Clark v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631. (9) The plats made by the county superintendent complied with the law in all respects. The following was written on all the plats: "The above proposed consolidated school district will consist of all the present school district of Pacific, Missouri, and the Dozier School District No. 60 of St. Louis County, Missouri. When consolidated the district will be known as Consolidated School District No. 3 of Franklin County, Missouri." Id certum est quod certum reddi potest. A similar plat has been held sufficient. State ex rel. v. Wright, 270 Mo. 376.
The relators, June 20, 1928, filed petition in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. praying for an alternative writ of mandamus commanding the defendant Walter Miller, County Clerk of St. Louis County, "to file for record in his office the estimate prepared by relators and presented to him for that purpose and to extend the school taxes of Dozier School District No. 60 on behalf of relators and to require the other defendants to turn over to relators the property and money on hand, books and papers of the said Dozier School District No. 60; or to show cause why they should not do so, and that upon a final submission the alternative writ be made peremptory."
The petition set out the facts showing the organization of Consolidated School District No. 3, under Section 11259, Revised Statutes 1919, as amended by the Act of 1921 (Laws 1921, page 654). The district was formed by consolidating a district called the Pacific District in Franklin County with Dozier School District No. 60 in St. Louis County. From the plats in the record it seems that the town of Pacific in Franklin County laps over somewhat into St. Louis County.
The petition alleged that the meeting for the purpose of organizing the consolidated school district was held March 1, 1928; that two hundred and sixty-three votes were cast for the organization, and forty votes cast against it, and the performance of all the preliminary steps necessary to the holding of the meeting. The answer and return of the respondents — appellants — to the alternative writ specifically denied each and every allegation of the petition.
The relators introduced the record of the proceeding to consolidate, which recites the facts alleged in the petition regarding the formation of the district and the vote cast at the meeting held for the purpose, and other evidence showing the steps taken. Among other things there was evidence that the number of children of school age in the consolidated district was less than five hundred — four hundred and forty-eight in the Pacific District, and about twenty-one in the Dozier District. The respondents — appellants — then introduced evidence tending to show that the notices and the plats posted in accordance with the statute were lacking in uniformity; that some of them failed to have the necessary signatures and were defective in other particulars; that they were examined when they were put up, February 14, 1928, and that they remained in the same condition until they were taken down on the first day of March, after the meeting for the purpose of consolidation. The relators introduced evidence to show that all the plats were in the same condition, properly signed when put up. The circuit court on the evidence introduced found for the relators and ordered the remedy prayed in the petition. From that judgment the respondents appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, which court transferred the case to this court on the ground that a constitutional question was involved.
I. Appellants first assert that Section 11259, as amended by the Act of 1921 (Laws 1921. p. 655), is unconstitutional. That section as amended provides that when resident citizens of a community desire to form a consolidated school district a Title: Two petition of at least twenty-five voters of the said Subjects. county shall be filed with the county superintendent of public schools. The county superintendent upon receipt of the petition shall investigate the needs and determine the boundary of the proposed consolidated district and so locate the boundary lines as will in his judgment form the best possible consolidated school district, having due regard for the welfare of the adjoining districts. He shall call a special meeting of all the qualified voters of the proposed consolidated district for the purpose of considering the question of consolidation. He shall make this call by posting within the proposed district ten notices in public places stating the time, place and purpose of the meeting, which shall commence at two o'clock on the date set. He shall also post in that territory five plats of the proposed consolidated district. The notices and plats shall be posted fifteen days prior to the date of the special meeting and within thirty days after the filing of the petition. The county superintendent shall file a copy of the petition and of the plat with the county clerk, and shall send or take one plat to the special meeting.
The section then provides the method of proceeding at the meeting.
The petition was filed with the Superintendent of Schools of Franklin County February 8, 1928; the notices and plats were posted February 14, 1928, and the meeting held March first following.
After the above provisions in Section 11259, the section proceeds as follows:
"If the proposed consolidated district includes territory lying in two or more counties the petition herein provided for shall be filed with the county superintendent of that county in which the majority of the petitioners reside. The county superintendent shall proceed as above set forth and in addition shall file a copy of the petition and of the plat with the county clerk of each county from which territory is proposed to be taken: Provided, that all plats and notices posted as required in this section shall not be filed or posted unless approved and signed by the county superintendent of all counties in which any part of such proposed district shall lie. Provided further, that should any county superintendent fail or refuse to sign all plats and notices as required in this section, the case may be appealed to the state superintendent by any other county superintendent interested and the decision of the state superintendent shall be final."
The appellants first assert that the Act of 1921 is unconstitutional, contrary to Section 28. Article IV, because it contains more than one subject which is not clearly expressed in the title. Section 11259 was first enacted in 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 722); the title is as follows: "An Act to provide for the organization of consolidated schools and rural high school and to provide state aid for such schools, with an emergency clause."
In State ex rel. v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631, it was held that the Act was constitutional as against that objection. This court said, l.c. 639:
"The Act relates to but one subject, namely, consolidated and rural high schools. While it deals with two phases of the same subject, the organization of the districts and their financial aid by the State, yet that fact constitutes no constitutional objection to the act. . . ."
The further objection is that the title to the Act of 1921 does not contain any reference to the amendment of Section 11259. It will be noticed from the part of that section quoted two provisions are appended:
The first proviso requiring plats and notices to be approved and signed by the county superintendent of schools of all the counties in which any part of the proposed district shall lie, was added by the amendment of 1917. The title to the amendatory act designated it as an amendment to the Act of 1913. The mere reference to an act or a section by the title of the amending act, is sufficient, without other description of the subject-matter. It is sufficient that the Act deal exclusively with the subject-matter of the act amended. [Clark v. Railroad, 319 Mo. l.c. 878; State v. Mullinix, 301 Mo. l.c. 390; Asel v. City of Jefferson, 287 Mo. l.c. 205.]
The Act of 1921 added the second proviso that if the county superintendent fail or refuse to sign the plats and notices the matter shall be appealed to the State Superintendent and the decision of the State Superintendent shall be final. It was not necessary to mention the amendment of 1917 in the title of the Act of 1921, because that amendment had been incorporated in the revision of 1919, and the Section 11259 appears in that revision with that proviso, so that what was amended by the Act of 1921 was Section 11259 as it appears in that revision. If we understand the appellant's constitutional objection this meets it.
II. The appellants introduced some evidence tending to show that at least one of the plats filed was not signed by the school superintendent of Franklin County, although the relators introduced evidence to show that all of the plats of which complaint was made were duly signed at the time they Mandamus: were put up. It was claimed further that a plat was Plats. not filed with the County Clerk of St. Louis County. Evidence was introduced to show that the plat in fact was presented to him for filing. It is claimed further that the plats were vague and uncertain and did not show the boundaries of the School District No. 60, taken in from St. Louis County. At the foot of each plat was the statement in typewriting:
"The above proposed consolidated school district will consist of all the present school district of Pacific, Missouri, and the Dozier District No. 60, of St. Louis County, Missouri. When consolidated the district will be known as Consolidated District No. 3 of Franklin County, Missouri."
It was signed by the School Superintendent of Franklin County. Missouri, and by Charles A. Lee, State Superintendent of Schools. It is not questioned that the signing of the notices and plats by the State Superintendent instead of by the County Superintendent of St. Louis County was a sufficient compliance with the law.
Appellants in their brief start out with statements equivalent to admissions that Consolidated District No. 3 was functioning as a de facto district and only question the regularity of the plats, etc. as mentioned above.
This is a collateral proceeding, and appellants, respondents in the mandamus proceeding, were not in position to question the validity of the organization. [State ex rel. Consolidated School District No. 1 of Mississippi and New Madrid Counties. v. Jones, 8 S.W.2d 66, l.c. 69, was a case in which exactly the same lack of formality was claimed in the formation of the district, as is claimed in this case, and it was held that the matter could not be inquired into in mandamus proceeding to compel the extension of taxes against land in that part of the consolidated district in one county. [State v. Moore, 18 S.W.2d l.c. 895; State ex rel. Waddell v. Johnson, 316 Mo. l.c. 24-25; Randolph v. Moberly Hunting Fishing Club, 15 S.W.2d l.c. 840.] In State ex rel. Buckley v. Thompson, 323 Mo. 248, 19 S.W.2d 714, the question was considered and in the ruling the court was divided, but not upon that proposition. All seemed to concur in the proposition that the organization of a district could not be questioned in a collateral proceeding, but differed on the fundamental question whether the organization was void on the face of the proceeding, or merely voidable. The majority holding was that in any event under the law a school district could not be organized in the manner in which the school district under consideration was attempted to be organized.
A number of cases are cited in the briefs on each side in which the organization of a school district was brought into question, but in each of them the proceeding was by quo warranto — a direct proceeding to test the validity of the organization.
III. Further questions of fact were presented as to the number of children in each district and the population of each district, as to whether the children in the consolidated district were fewer than five hundred. There was further question as to whether the estimate required to be filed with the county Number of clerk had been forwarded. If these facts had been a Children. proper subject of inquiry collaterally, the matter was settled, for the trial court resolved them all in favor of relators.
The judgment is affirmed. All concur.