Case Title: Kiner v. Well

Citation: 71 N.W.2d 743

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1955-08-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
71 N.W.2d 743 (1955) E. L. KINER, Sr., Herman Mosolf, A. W. McDonald, Ralph M. Smith, and Melvin Juhl, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Alice WELL, County Superintendent of Schools of Pembina County, Defendant and Respondent. No. 7512. Supreme Court of North Dakota. August 26, 1955. *745 Day, Stokes, Vaaler & Gillig, Grand Forks, for plaintiffs and appellants. Fred S. Snowfield, Cavalier, for defendant and respondent. JOHNSON, Judge. This is an action for injunction. It involves the reorganization of six school districts. It is brought by E. L. Kiner, a taxpayer and resident of Murphy School District No. 71, by Herman Mosolf, a taxpayer and resident of Mugford School District No. 93, by A. W. McDonald, as a taxpayer and resident of School District No. 16, and by Ralph M. Smith and Melvin Juhl, as taxpayers and residents of Wilson School District No. 15, all in Pembina County, North Dakota. They question the validity of an election held on the 19th day of February, 1951, at Bowesmont in School District No. 74, involving a proposed reorganization of the school districts mentioned into a new school district to be known as Bowesmont School District. They pray that the election be declared invalid, void and of no effect, and also that the defendant, the County Superintendent of Schools of Pembina County, be permanently enjoined from doing any act pursuant to the election in connection with the new school district consisting of the adjustment of property assets, debts and liabilities or from taking any steps to organize and establish such district, or doing any act in connection therewith. The election was held pursuant to Chapter 15-53, NDRC 1949 Supp., entitled, "Act to provide for the reorganization of school districts". The amended complaint sets forth that the election was called by the County Superintendent of Pembina County for the purpose of approving or rejecting the proposal for the formation of a school district to be known and bear the name of "Bowesmont School District." The complaint sets forth the notice of the special election as published, as follows: It is then alleged that the election was held on the 19th day of February, 1951, and ballots were presented which did not conform to the notice of the special election in that they did not except Murphy School District No. 71, consisting of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 and 18 in Township 161, Range 51, but included the same contrary to the notice; that the ballot included property that was not described in the notice of the special election, as follows: "Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of North Midland Township 160, Range 52"; that the ballot used in the election read as follows: It is also alleged that the errors in the notice of the special election prejudiced the voters; that voters did not attend the election who would have voted against the proposition, which would have changed the results of the election; that many voters who did not attend the election and vote were confused as to the legal significance of their ballot and the results of the election; that their votes as cast were not as intended; that the notice of election was not given as required by law to the voters residing in the territory included in the ballot, and voters were misled thereby and prevented a free and intelligent vote; that the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the failure *747 of the notice to comply with the statutory requirements in stating the terms of adjustment of property, debts and liabilities, said statement being only in general terms as indicated in the notice and not as required by law; that necessary committees were not appointed and organized; that the duties and functions of the necessary committees were not performed as required; that necessary meetings were not held nor were notices given as required by law; that the necessary steps prior to the election were not performed; that the plaintiffs were prejudiced thereby, and that the subsequent election was without jurisdiction and void. It is further alleged that the notice of the special election did not conform to Section 15-5318, NDRC 1949 Supp. in that it did not contain a description of the boundaries of the proposed new district and that as a result the election was void; that the election was also invalid as the village of Bowesmont voted as a unit with the rural area. It is further alleged that the election was invalid in that the same attempted to place before the voters two distinct or a double proposition, in that the ballot included the following: It is also alleged that pursuant to the results of the special election, the county superintendent will, unless enjoined, proceed to make adjustment of property assets, debts and liabilities and organize and establish the new district to the detriment of the plaintiffs and all interested parties and that the defendant will call a special election for the purpose of electing directors for said school district and perform other duties and expend moneys of the plaintiffs and other interested parties; that the plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or speedy remedy at law, and that they will be without relief unless granted the relief requested in the complaint by way of an injunction. The defendant answers generally and specifically denying the allegations of the complaint and asserting that no prejudice was created by the discrepancy occurring in the description of the areas and the boundaries of the newly proposed district as between the notice of the special election and the ballot, and further contending that the proceedings taken for the reorganization of the school district were all in accordance with substantial compliance required by the reorganization law and asks for a dismissal of the action. The action was heard by the district court of Pembina County and a judgment was rendered dismissing the action and dissolving a temporary restraining order. The plaintiffs have appealed and demanded a trial de novo. As will be noted from the pleadings, the reorganization plan under the act consisted of six old school districts in the south-central part of Pembina County, North Dakota. The area proposed to be organized into a new school district included all of the following districts: Murphy No. 71; District No. 15; District No. 16; Mugford No. 93; Lincoln No. 12, and Bowesmont No. 74. The proposed plan for the reorganization of the six school districts mentioned was considered at a meeting that took place on October 3, 1950. About forty-five persons were present. All districts except No. 16 were represented. After some discussion of the proposed plan for the reorganization of the Bowesmont School District, on motion, the plan as proposed was approved by a vote of 21 in favor and 3 opposed. Final action on the petition, however, was deferred until a later date. On October 25, 1950, the county committee of Pembina County met for the purpose of taking official action on the proposed *748 plan for the reorganization of Bowesmont School District which had been under discussion at the meeting on the 3rd day of October. At the October 25th meeting official action on the result of the reorganization hearing held on October 3rd was taken. A plan was drawn up for the formation of a new school district to be known as the Bowesmont School District, and was approved by unanimous vote of the Pembina County school reorganization committee. This plan provided for the adjustment of assets and liabilities between the old districts and the new district, and also proposed that the new district should be a common school district with five directors. The plan as proposed and approved by the county committee was submitted to the state committee and approved by it on November 3, 1950. A special election was called for the purpose of "approving or rejecting the proposed new school district", on the 19th day of February, 1951. At that election 155 votes were cast, of which a total of 97 were in favor of the reorganization of the new Bowesmont School District and 58 against. The judges of the election declared the reorganization carried for the formation of the new district. On the 25th day of May, 1951, 95 days after the election approving the formation of the new Bowesmont School District, the plaintiffs commenced this action. On the 31st day of May, 1951, a temporary restraining order was issued and an order to show cause calling for a hearing thereon on the 12th day of June, 1951, at 2 o'clock in the city of Cavalier, North Dakota. The defendant demurred to the complaint alleging that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. After hearing on the demurrer and on September 10, 1951, it was sustained. The plaintiffs were given fifteen days in which to amend the complaint. They served an amended complaint and answer was interposed. The trial in district court took place on the 26th day of May, 1953. No testimony on the merits was submitted except as disclosed by the written records of the county committee. The district court dismissed the action of the plaintiffs, and judgment was entered on the 30th day of April, 1954. Notice of entry of judgment was served on the 3rd day of May, 1954. On the 31st day of August, 1954, notice of appeal was served upon the attorney for the defendant. No stay of execution was obtained. The plaintiffs and appellants base their argument on three main points: Section 15-5318 of the NDRC 1949 Supp., being the statute in force at the time of the special election held in Pembina County concerning the reorganization of the Bowesmont School District, provided in part as follows: The town of Bowesmont was located in the area of Lincoln Township. It had no separate government from that of the township and as far as the record shows is an unincorporated town. It must be presumed that at the time of the enactment of this statute, the legislature was cognizant *749 of the common, ordinary meaning attached to the word "incorporated." Public corporations, under our law, include a county, city, village, township, school district, and any body corporate except a private corporation. Section 21-0401, NDRC 1943. A public corporation is one created by the state for political purposes and to act as an agency in the administration of civil government, generally within a particular territory or subdivision of the state, and usually invested, for that purpose, with subordinate and local powers of legislation; such as the county, city, town or school district. Webster's New International Dictionary, 1955 Edition, defines the word "incorporate" as follows: "To form into a legal body, or body politic; to constitute into a corporation recognized by law, with special functions, rights, duties, and liabilities." Incorporation is a term used to describe results of an entire course of legal proceeding whereby a municipality is brought into existence by a special legislative act or by proceedings and organization under general law or by adopting homerule charter under constitutional provisions. City of Sherman v. Municipal Gas Co., 133 Tex. 324, 127 S.W.2d 193, 195. Under our statutes, certain legal procedure is necessary to create a village, city, township, county or school district. Unless a village has been created as provided by statute, and the necessary steps required thereby taken, the town is not an incorporated village in the sense used in the school reorganization statute. We hold that the town of Bowesmont was a rural area and does not come within the word "incorporated" as used in the reorganization law. It was, therefore, proper to count the votes cast in the special election held on February 19, 1951, as one unit. The most serious question presented in this action is the variation between the description of the area of the established school districts to comprise the new district, as set out in the notice of the special election, and the description thereof, as set out in the ballot. The map in evidence and the ballot correctly describe the area to be reorganized into the Bowesmont School District. It is noted that both the posted and the published notice of the election excluded from the area Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 18 of South Joliette Township 161, Range 51. This is the area that comprises Murphy School District No. 71. This area was to be included in the reorganization of the new school district and should have been included in the notice of election. The notice, however, is correct insofar as it refers to Murphy School District No. 71. All the districts involved in the reorganization are correctly described in the notice by name and number. The question presented here is whether the omission of the area mentioned in the notice is of such a nature as to require the invalidation of the election. There is no evidence showing that any voter was misled, confused or prejudiced by the description error contained in the notice of the special election. Nor was any evidence presented by the plaintiffs or by any elector in the area omitted from the notice indicating that the voters within that area, which should have been included in the notice, did not avail themselves of the opportunity to vote upon the question. It is also contended that the failure to describe, in both the posted and published notice of the election, Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Midland Township is another reason why the election is invalid. This discrepancy in the notice does not appear to be serious. Both the notice and the ballot specifically state that all of Mugford School District No. 93 was a part of the newly proposed school district. Reference to the map discloses that Mugford School *750 District No. 93 is partly located in Midland Township and partly in Lincoln Township. The sections omitted by specific reference were that part of the area of Mugford School District No. 93 which is located in Midland Township. No evidence was introduced to show that either the plaintiffs or anyone else was prejudiced or prevented from intelligently casting his vote at the special election by reason of this error. The record is silent as to whether or not the people within the area which should have been included in the notice voted or failed to do so. Since the courts hesitate to disfranchise even the few, there is greater reason, then, for reluctance in setting aside the expressed will of all by the declaration that a whole election is invalid. Hence we find the rule of law to be that generally where the statute does not in express terms declare that the election shall be void or by reasonable inference, invalidate the election, the election will be sustained and the violation of statutes will be treated as an irregularity, going to the form, rather than to the substance where, from all of the facts, the court does conclude that despite the departure from the statutory requirements a full and fair ballot has been cast and a true and fair return of the entire election has been canvassed and made. Kerlin v. Devils Lake, 25 N.D. 207, 141 N.W. 756. There is no express declaration in the school district reorganization act or otherwise that an election shall be void unless all formalities of the statutes are strictly observed. There is no charge that there was any fraud or irregularity in the conduct of the election itself, nor that a fair and full expression of the public will was prevented by reason of anything that was done or *751 omitted, except the mere assertion by the plaintiffs, unsupported by any testimony, that they and other parties were prejudiced, by the discrepancies occurring in the notice of the special election in the description of the boundaries of the district and by the further contention that they were confused and misled thereby and that the voters were prevented from a free and intelligent expression of their will. In the case of State ex rel. Laird v. Hall, 49 N.D. 11, 186 N.W. 284, 289, Judge Christianson in a concurring opinion said: The mere assertion by the plaintiffs of prejudice is insufficient. No proof thereof exists. Our court has clearly indicated in the case of Anderson v. Peterson, 78 N.D. 949, 54 N.W.2d 542, 556 that the school district reorganization act should be liberally construed. That case says: Irregularities which do not deprive any voter of a fair chance to register his will, or which do not prevent will of the voters from being fairly and truly ascertained and declared, do not vitiate a school election to determine the question of consolidation. Viktora v. Cressman, 41 S.D. 159, 169 N.W. 551, 553. In that case the court said: We will not, nor may we assume or infer that, in absence of evidence thereof, the irregularities complained of were such as to create prejudice to the plaintiffs or other electors in the area of the proposed new school district. Recent holdings of other courts where similar or analogous situations have been involved are in accord with this conclusion. Carnes v. Livingston County Board of Education, 341 Mich. 600, 67 N.W.2d 795, held that an election which is passed will not be declared void because particular detail of law relative to notice has not been strictly observed, in absence of any showing that any elector was thereby deprived of his right to vote or in any way misled, or that the result was affected by the complained of irregularities. State ex rel. Burnquist v. Independent Consolidated School District, Minn., 65 N.W.2d 117; Erickson v. Sammons, Minn., 65 N.W.2d 198. See also Edwards v. Union High School Dist. No. 8, 198 Or. 611, 258 P.2d 148. The map showing the boundaries of the proposed Bowesmont School District indicates that the territory therein was to include all of Lincoln Township, including Bowesmont, except Sections 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, Township 160, Range 51; all of South Joliette Township 161, Range 51, and Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of North Midland Township 160, Range 52, together with all railroad and other property located within the boundaries, all in Pembina County, North Dakota. This was the area that was to be included in the proposed Bowesmont School District and to be approved or rejected at the special election. The appellants insist that the boundaries of the district were not properly set out. The statute does not set forth how the boundaries of a proposed new district shall be determined. It merely states "and shall also contain a description of the boundaries of the proposed new district." A description of the area will result in the determination of the boundary of the same. Here the area was given rather than the boundaries. The map showing the area is correct. Any elector confused by the notice had the means of ascertaining the exact boundaries and area involved. An examination of the records of the Pembina County School Reorganization Committee would have disclosed the same. It is asserted that the Pembina County Committee was never legally appointed and that there was not sufficient compliance with Section 15-5313, NDRC 1949 Supp. We have carefully considered all of the evidence submitted with reference to the appointment of a county committee and conclude that there was substantial compliance with the requisites of the law in the creation of the county committee. Section 15-5306, NDRC 1949 Supp. The same may be said with reference to the requirements of Section 15-5313, NDRC 1949 Supp. Public hearings on the proposal for the reorganization of Bowesmont School District were held. Notice of such hearing was published in the official paper more than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. Testimony was taken and terms of the adjustment of property, debts and liabilities among the districts involved, were discussed and approved and the plan was submitted to the state committee and approved by it. Both the notice of the election and the ballot provided that all of the assets of the districts which were to comprise the new district should become the assets and property of the new district and they further provided that the new district should assume all of the debts, and *753 liabilities and obligations of each and all of the old districts that were to comprise the new district. If all of the assets of all the districts out of which the new district was to be formed were to become the assets of the new district, there was just as much an adjustment of the assets as if the assets of each district had been separately appraised, listed and set forth in some formal agreement and the same is true with reference to the liabilities and the obligations of the old districts out of which the new district was to be formed. If the new district assumed as its debts and obligations all of the liabilities of the old districts, nothing more could have been accomplished if the debts and liabilities, if any, of each district, had been separately listed. The contention that the voters were voting on two distinct propositions is without merit. That portion of the notice of the election which dealt with the areas from which the five directors of the proposed new school district were to be elected was mere surplusage. It was not required by the statute, Section 15-5318, NDRC 1949 Supp. It follows that the error in making such recitals will be treated as being immaterial where they did not mislead the electors. In re Cleveland, 52 N.J.L. 188, 19 A. 17, 20 A. 37, 7 L.R.A. 431. While the record does disclose a failure to comply with the strict and literal provisions of the school district reorganization act in connection with the reorganization of the new Bowesmont School District, the detailed procedure indicates an honest and a substantial compliance therewith, which, after the election, constitutes substantial compliance with the statutes, in absence of proof that the electorate was misled by the errors involved, or that the deviations from the requirements of the statutes prevented the electors from intelligently expressing their will. We reach the conclusion that there has been no such deviation from the statutes, when all of the facts and circumstances are considered, as to render the creation of the new Bowesmont School District illegal, invalid and void. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and the action of the plaintiffs dismissed. BURKE, C. J., and SATHRE, MORRIS and GRIMSON, JJ., concur.