Case ID: iowa_55/html/0390-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Adams, On. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eason et al. v. Douglass et al.
    1. School Districts: independent districts: change op boundaries. The boards of directors of independent school districts have no power to change the boundaries of their districts. Such change can only be made, if at all, by the county superintendent, under the joint provisions of sections 1797 and 1806 of the Code.
    
      Appeal from Jolmson Gi/rouit Gov/rt.
    
    Saturday, December 18.
    Action for mandamus. The plaintiffs aver in their petition in substance that they are residents of Independent School District No. 4, in Cedar township, Johnson county; that the defendants are directors of said district; that the plaintiffs are not accommodated in said district, but they would be accommodated in Independent Union District No. 9, adjacent to District No. 4, and that they desire that the territory upon which they reside should be detached from District No. 4 and attached to District No. 9. They also aver in substance that for the purpose of securing such change of boundaries they presented their petitions respectively to the boards of directors of the districts, praying for the change; that the board of directors of District No. 9 consented to the change, and adopted a resolution to that effect, and caused it to be entered upon the record; that the board of directors of District No. 4 was notified of the action, and was requested to hold a joint meeting, and such meeting was held, and arrangements were partially made for making the change, but that the board of directors of District No. 4 now refuse to act in the matter, wherefore they pray for a writ of mandamus to compel them to act. To the plaintiffs’ petition showing the above facts the defendants demurred. The court sustained the demurrer, and rendered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal.
    
      GonMvn <& O'*Hair, for appellants.
    
      Robinson <& Patterson, for appellees.
   Adams, On. J.

The plaintiffs rely upon sections 1796 and 1806 of the Code. The former provides that the boai’d of directors of a district township may change the boundaries of subdistricts. The latter provides tliat independent districts shall be governed by the laws enacted for the regulation of district townships so far as the same are applicable. The said District No. 4 and District No. 9 are independent districts.

In our opinion section 1796 is not applicable to this case. A change of boundaries of subdistricts is quite a different thing from the change of boundaries of independent districts. Subdistricts are governed by a common board; independent districts are not. The change of boundaries of independent districts is not unlike the change of boundaries of district townships. The latter can be done only by the county superintendent, under section 1797.

School directors have only the powers conferred by statute, and we fail to discover any provision authorizing the directors of independent districts to change their boundaries. If this can be done at all, and we are inclined to think it can, it. should be done, we think, by v the county superintendent, under the joint provisions of sections 1797 and 1806. We think the demurrer was rightly sustained.

Affirmed.