Title: STATE, EX REL. v. Rural High School District No. 3

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

169 Kan. 671 (1950)
220 P.2d 164
THE STATE OF KANSAS, on the Relation of FRANK G. SPURNEY as County Attorney of Republic County, Kansas, Appellee and Cross-Appellant,
v.
RURAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 3, REPUBLIC COUNTY, KANSAS; CHARLES W. STAFFORD, Director; E.C. STENSON, Clerk of said District, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 63, REPUBLIC COUNTY, KANSAS; HAROLD R. SANKEY, Director; VERL F. BECK, Clerk; and E.A. SOMERHOLDER, Treasurer of said District; and C.E. McCLURE, Treasurer of RURAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 3 of REPUBLIC COUNTY, KANSAS, Appellants.
No. 38,099

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 8, 1950.
John S. Dean, Jr., of Topeka, argued the cause, and Melvin R. Quinlan, of Topeka, and Ed. Chapman, of Belleville, were with him on the briefs for appellants and cross-appellees.
N.J. Ward, of Belleville, argued the cause, and Frank G. Spurney, of Belleville, was with him on the briefs for appellees and cross-appellants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment in a proceeding in quo warranto brought in the district court of Republic county on the relation of the county attorney against Rural High School District No. 3; Common School District No. 63, and the individual members of the boards of both districts, to oust the school districts and their boards from proceeding to unite in the erection of a school building for the joint use of both districts, and from using the proceeds of the sale of their separate issues of bonds to pay the cost of erecting such joint school building.
The Common School District is located entirely within the boundaries of the Rural High School District, and the city of Republic is located within the boundaries of the Common School District. Belleville, the county seat, lies without the territorial limits of both districts.
*672 During the course of events leading up to the commencement of the action a sharp dispute and differences of opinion concerning matters of policy arose among the electors of the districts as well as between and among the board members. At one point in the proceedings two members of the board of the Rural High School District were ousted from office by the county superintendent of public instruction. Their appeals from such order of ouster were consolidated with the instant case and all were tried together by the lower court, resulting in their reinstatement. No appeal to this court has been taken in the ouster proceedings and we are concerned with that phase of the case only as it affects the main issue involved.
Considerable evidence was introduced and at the conclusion of the trial the court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rather than attempt to summarize them they will be set out in full, and the findings of fact are as follows:
The conclusions of law are:
All of the parties filed motions for a new trial on the usual statutory grounds. In addition, Common School District No. 63, the individual members of the board of such district, and one member of the board of Rural High School District No. 3, filed their motion to set aside findings of fact numbered 15, 18 and 19, and all conclusions of law rendered by the court.
The plaintiff, defendant Rural High School District No. 3 and the remaining two members of the board of such district moved for additional findings and conclusions to the effect that the proceeds of the bond issues of the districts could not be used in whole or in part for the purpose of building a joint building to be used for the joint purposes of the two districts without such being authorized by an election, and further that such proceeds could not be used to acquire a site for school purposes without an election.
All of the foregoing motions were overruled, and on April 1, 1950, a journal entry of judgment was signed by the court and filed.
Portions of the judgment and decree of the court material for our purposes are:
..............
Common School District No. 63, the three members of its board, and the one member of the board of Rural High School District No. 3, appealed from all adverse rulings, and the plaintiff, together with Rural High School District No. 3 and the other two members of the board of that district, cross-appealed from the ruling that defendant districts have the authority to join in the construction of a building for their joint use, from the failure of the court to hold that the proceeds of the bond issues cannot at any time be used for joint school purposes, from the failure of the court to hold that a *677 site had not yet been sufficiently selected, and from any and all other adverse orders and rulings. All together, the various parties allege twenty-one specifications of error, some of which from the record before us are not entirely clear, and a number of them overlap.
At the time of oral argument in this court counsel for both sides commented on the confused state of the record. Our examination and study of it bear out the accuracy of that statement. Here we have a cross fire of contentions by the state against both districts, one district against the other, and then a sharp conflict between two members of one board and the third member thereof. To say the least, it is very difficult  if not impossible  to ascertain just what are the specific contentions of the respective parties relied on for reversal of this judgment.
It is contended that a number of the court's findings of fact are not supported by or are contrary to the evidence and that the court should have made additional findings. We have carefully examined the evidence as abstracted and while there are a number of instances in which the court would have been justified in finding differently, yet we think that each of the findings so made is supported by evidence, and, such being the case, we are not at liberty to disturb them.
Taking the court's findings, then, as the factual basis of what transpired, we are next confronted with the question of the correctness of the conclusions of law and the judgment ultimately entered by the court. A presumption of validity attaches to a judgment until the contrary is shown and the burden of establishing its invalidity is of course on those alleging it. With one exception we are unable to say that the conclusions of law are erroneous, this exception being conclusion No. 4, which, if it is intended as an interpretation of chapter 353, Laws of 1949, we believe to be an overstatement. That provision, which became effective April 2, 1949, reads:
We think that conclusion of law No. 4 should be set aside, but such holding does not alter the situation or require a reversal of the *678 judgment. We are told that the proceeds of the bond issues are being held intact by the respective boards, and in our opinion the ultimate rights of both school districts are correctly set forth in the second above quoted paragraph of the court's judgment, wherein the court held that the districts possessed the legal right to join in the erection of a building for their joint use, conditioned upon all precedent steps being taken for such purpose as outlined in the statutes pertaining thereto. The effect of such holding was to advise both districts that they had the right to start over again in the matter of calling meetings so as to give the electors an opportunity to vote on the question of the construction of a building for the joint use of both districts.
This disposes of the questions raised on the cross-appeal, and with respect to other matters raised on the principal appeal we are compelled to hold that it has not been made affirmatively to appear that the judgment of the lower court is erroneous and should be reversed. Such being the case, we have no alternative than to affirm. (G.S. 1935, 60-3317; Firmin v. Crawford, 140 Kan. 370, 36 P.2d 970; Jones v. Crowell, 167 Kan. 415, 419, 207 P.2d 435.)
From what has been said it therefore follows that conclusion of law No. 4 is vacated and set aside. As to the principal appeal the judgment, as so modified, is affirmed, and as to the cross-appeal the judgment is affirmed.