The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1899-12-21
DECIDES against sonool District.

4 Judge Towner has rendered his de.
cision in the case OF Curran Gentry VS..
District TOWNSHIP, of Bloomington ct al.
in which he decides in favor of the
plaintiff and renders Judgment against
the District for the costs. The question
involved was as to the legality of the
tax Of $1,000 to build two school houses
in Bloomington township The case is
of general interest and we print Judge
Towner's opinion in full:
The plaintiff in his petition for "a writ
of Certiorari alleges that he is a resident
and taxpayer of Defendant Township,
and claims that the said township has
exceeded its jurisdiction and acted ill.,
legally, in that, at the annual meeting
of qualified electors, held on the 18th
day of March, 1899, q proposition was
submitted and carried to vote tax of
seven hundred dollars to build school,
house in said District No. 8, and, at the
same time and place, to vote tax of
three hundred dollars to build a school.
house in District No. 6 of said district
township. That both propositions car
ried, and tax aggregating one thous.
and dollars was voted for the purpose
of building said ol-houses.
The plaintiff claims that such propo.
sitions, and each of them, were not
legally submitted, according to law.
That the secretary of said board did not
cause to he posted legal notice as re-
quiled by the law, in that the notice
given specified that the meeting called
would be 'sfor the transaction of such
business as might regularly come before
it," and did not specify that at said
meeting the voters would be called up.
on to vote upon the propositions Of
building school. houses, and levying u
tax to pay therefor, as before stated.
This case presents the question as to
whether or not the provisions Of the
statute regarding the necessity in regard
to notice is mandatory, or directory,
only. Section 2,746 of the Code pro-
vides that, "Notice in writing Of the
place, day, and hours during which the
meeting will be in session, specifying
the number of directors to be elected,
and the terms thereof, aud such propo.
sitions as will be submitted to and de.
termined by the voters, shall be posted
by the secretary of the board, etc."
| In order to sustain the action of the
board in this case it would be necessary
for the court to declare that those pro.
visions of the statute were directory
only, and not mandatory. The Ian.
guage of the statute itself Is mandatory.
1t says, "they shall be posted, etc"
1t is true that language of this char.
acter is some times held to be directory
only, but never, in so far as it has come
to the courts knowledge, in case of
the character of the present, has any
court ever held such language as direct.
ory.
Part Of Section No. 2.749 provides
that the board may, or upon the writ.
ten request of five voters of any school
township, or of twenty-five voters of
any city or town independent district,
or of fifty voters in any other city OF
town district, shall provide in the no.
tice for the annual meeting for submit.
ting any proposition authorized by law
to the voters.
| It's general proposition Of law, well
established, that directions given fol
the benefit Of the Taxpayers are manda
tory. In such case as the present tc
hold that taxes of this kind could be
voted without notice would be to Oper
the door wide for fraud. In such a case
as this. the Taxpayers having no notice
of whether or not such an important
1question was to be submitted, the per
I sons favorable to such proposition coulG
watch for an opportunity when they
knew that the matter would be favor
liable acted upon, and press it at tina
time, or suppress it upon an unfavor
ably occasion, and thus place it within
their power to control by fraud what
they would not otherwise have tn,
power to secure if the proposition wa
openly presented.
The court believes that it is due t,
the taxpayer, as a protection in sucl
cases, that the provisions of the law re
Igarding notice should be faithfully ad
hered to.
For these reasons, the prayer of tn
plaintiffs petition is granted, and judg
ment and decree ordered for plaintiff
and against defendant and for costs.