The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1914-04-07
COURT
Is SUSTAINED
CONTROVERSY over PORTION
or SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. %,
ANNEXED TO TOWER CITY DIS
TRlcT, SETTLED IN FAVOR OF.
TOWER CITY SCHOOL BOARD.

In the case Of School District No.
"a, a corporation. appellant, VS.. the
Tower City Board of Education, and
Addison Leech, county auditor Of Cass
county, the supreme court of the state
Of North Dakota upheld the decision
of The district court, in favor Of the
defendant.
The Tower City school district is a
special district. and the case came up
originally over the right of this dis
trict to annex a portion Of district
No. "a, to the north. The residents
living on three sections in the western
end of No. "a petitioned for admission
to the Tower City district, and they
were admitted. .
The authorities Of district No. 81
brought the case to enjoin the Tower
City board from a%nnexing this terri
tory. The district court decided in
favor of the defendant, and the SUI
preme court upheld the decision OF
the lower court. The syllabus of the
court follows:
In the supreme: court, state OF North
Dakota, School, District No 81, a cor
poration, appellant, VS.. c. M. Thomp-
son, Frank T. Rice, David B. Shaw,
Louis Stien. George w. Kelly, on
stituting the board of education of
the village of Tower City, North Da-
kota, and Addison Leech, county audi
tor of Cass county, North Dakota,
respondents.
l. Plaintiff seeks to perpetually en-
join defendants, as officers of a spe-
cial school district, from annexing
certain adjacent territory to such dis
trict for school purposes, under c
ton 1873, chapter 266, laws of 1911, al
leging as grounds for such relief that
the special district had unlawfully in
Cured an Indebtedness exceeding the
constitutional debt limit; and also that
the petition, for such annexation was
not signed by qualified school voters
in such adjacent territory.
. Held, that the first ground alleged
is Of no avail, 1t being wholly imma-
terial under such statute.
Held, further, that the sole issue for
trial under the pleadings is whether
the signers of! the petition were in
fact residents and school voters in
such adjacent territory. and on trial
de novo the trial courts finding there
on in defendants favor is adopted by
this court.
Of adjacent territory to a special dis
trict for school purposes need not set
forth all the facts, the existence OF
which are required by the statute to
authorize the board to act. tt is for
the board Of the special district to, de-
term1ne, before allowing such petition,
whether the jurisdictional prerequi-
sites in fact exist authorizing it ito
grant the prayer Of the petitioners.
8. The fact that the petitioners
were not owners Of the real property
sought to be annexed is not material
the statute merely requiring that they
be school voters in such adjacent ter
ritory. Nor does the fact that such
petitioners contemplated a removal
from such lands at a future time. dis
quality them from acting while they
remained such voters.
4. Appellants contention that the
notice of hearing on such petition was
not published as required by section
1888, supra, held ~untenable. One pub
LEGATION OF such notice in the nearest
newspaper fourteen days prior to the
hearing, and posting the same in the
manner prescribed in the above sec-
ton, is all that was contemplated by
the legislature.
(Syllabus by the court).
Appeal from district court, Cass
county; Chass A. Pollock, J.
From a judgment in defendants
favor, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed. Opinion of the court by