The record-union., 1894-03-22
UNION HIGH SCHOOLS.
The Supreme Court Renders an I'M
portant Decision.
No Corporate Action of Trustees
Needed-Neglect of One District
Does Not InvalIdate Election.

The Supreme Court has rendered an
important decision in the case of the
People. ex rel. Brown, appellant, VS..
Union High School District of Solano
County, respondent.
Information in the nature of quo war
ranto, filed by the Attorney General in
the Superior Court of Solano County,
charges that the defendant wrongly
claims and exercises the franchises OF a
duly organized union high school dis
trict, under an Act of the Legislature
passed March 20, 1891, to proyide Tor the
| establishment OF high schools. A de-
| murrer was sustained by the court and as
plaintiff declined to amend his complaint.
Judgment was given to defendant, and
plaintiffs appealed.
The district is composed of eight ad-
joining districts in Solano County. The
decision quotes the law Tor the formation
OF union high schools. The appellant
claimed that the district was never
organized as corporation and did not
comply with some OF the essential re-
qumements Of the Act and that therefore
the Court erred in sustaining the de-
murrer. Although the majority OF the
trustees of each of the eight districts
signed The petition for the formation OF
the high school district, he claims that as
such signing was not authorized by any
coroorate act or resolution Of one OF the
boards OF Trustees in the eight districts
anu This vitiated The organization OF the
district.
The court holds that no corporate action
of the Boards Of Trustees OF The several
school districts was necessary, as only a
majority OF The trustees Of Two or more
adjoining districts WAS necessary.
rs a majority OF the boards OF each OF
the eight districts did sign, they Ga more
than me law required.
Appellant further claimed that the petit
ton should be signed by 100 resident
electors OF each district, instead OF resi-
dent electors OF tie union high school us
trict. AS school district may contain
only tell families and only fifteen school
children, the court holds That the Leglsla-
ture could hardly have meant 100 resident
electors OF each district.
Appellant further contended that an
election should have been held in each Of
the eight districts, and that in one of them
no election was held ana also that the
election was not properly conducted, the
County Superintendent having appointed
but one inspector and two judges tor each
district. The court holds that if one dis
trict neglected to hold an election that
cannot Nitlatc the elecllOn, anu Cne tTuS-
tees could, and the presumption is that
they did, appoint proper number OF in
spectOrs, Judges and clerks.
The Judgment appealed from is af-
firmed.
WRIT OF MANDATE ORDERED.
The court has also decided the case of
L. Hicks and l.. Hoffman, petitioners,
VS.. W. f. Masten, Superior Judge OF Las
sen County, respondent
1t is an original application to the SUI
preme Court for a writ OF mandate re-
quiring the respondent to settle ii bill OF
exceptions, which he had refused to do.
on the ground that as written notice had
not been served on him within the proper
time he had no jurisdiction or power to
DO so.
A peremptory writ of mandate is is
sued, commanding respondent to settle
and certify to the bill OF exceptions.