The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1918-07-26
Opinion Rendered By State
Supreme Court
DECISION OF ], HALLAM
UphoIds That Rendered In the.
Blue Earth County District
Tribunal


opinion of the supreme court up
holding decision of the Blue Earth
county district court. The opinion
does not mean that those in favor
of consolidation must abandon their
idea of an educational merger, but it
does mean that the particular plan
they had in view is defeated. Should
those in favor of consolidation wish
TO again start the move they can
do so.
The opinion of the supreme court
is as follows:
In re Consolidation of School Dis
tricts in Blue Earth county, William
Schultz, ct al, appellants, VS.. Con-
solidated School District No. 1, re-
spondent.
In re- Consolidation of School Dis
tricts in Blue Earth county. CONSOLE
dated School District No. /, appellant,
vs.. William Schultz, ct al, respond
ents.
H.. Syllabus.
One. A. petition signed by the req
uisite number of sqafreeholders is
jurisdictional in proceedings for the
consolidation of school districts under
General Statutes 1913, Sec. 26S7.
Two One vino holds a land con-
tract for the conveyance of land in
consideration of a conveyance agreed
to be made by him of other land is
a freehOlder.
Three. The findings of the court that
| a particular contract of this kind was
Jona fide is sustained by the evidence.
rCul. On the question whether a
resident of the district was free
holder, evidence that such person,
present invcourt but not /, witness,
and who did not sign "a petition, had
lsaid that 5heehad no interest in GER
tain tractnof land, was -hearsay and
was properly excluded HIS m 4Jsa
Five. A new trial on the ground OF
newly discovered evidence was prop
lerly denied. bu. 9f91
4 Affirmed a3i agGs 500
s''' t0 Opinion, 40 t5a1@n
September 20, 1915, certain free
holders in the school districts Nos 16
4 II, 20, 81, 22s go and DOC OF, Blue Tarth
county filed1a petition for the ,consol
jidaticn of those districts. Thereupor
the countb superintendent called q
meeting ofmthe electors of these
.lschool districts for the purpose Of
voting on the question of consolida
tion. The meeting was held, CONSOLE
ldation carried and the, county super
/ intendent made an order of consoli
ldation. Thereupon certain elector.
appealed to the district court and Ger.
ttain electors also commenced an ac
ltion to restrain further proceeding.
1 under the petition.
I The district court found In favor o
the opponents of consolidation. TIL,
ground of the decision was as fol
| lows: The statute provides that tn,
petition for consolidation shall b,
signed by at least twenty-five pc
cent of the resident freeholders of eacl
district affected, qualified to vote a
school meetings. G. S. 1913. Sec. 26S7
/ Only four such electors Of district Nc
80 signed the petition. The court foun
that there were seventeen such cleo
tors within that district and tina
} therefore the number of petitions wa
, insufficient
), One. This court has held that
Il petition signed by the required mum
Der OF freeholders is ,jurisdictiona
.lSchweigert v. Abbott, 122 Mimi. 49,
The contention of the consolidate
district Isl that the finding of th
/. fact as to the number OF electors i
district No. 80 is not sustained by til
levidence.
! Two. The court found that Bel
Putrah and Margaret Putrah, hi
, wife, were resident freeholders of dis
D trict No. 80, qualified to vote at schoc
/ meetings. That they were freehold
ers is denied. There was evidenc
e that they held contract from Phil
W. Putrah, father of Bert Putrah, t
t convey to them, jointly, 80 acres {
land on which they lived in distrie
80, in consideration of conveyano
. agreed to be made by them to Philli
of tract of land elsewhere. If th
: contract was bonafide and in fore
: at the time in controversy then Be-
Q and Margaret Putrah were freehold
ers. The status of the holder of sue
contract has been considered b
: this court in many cases.. These wi
), be found reviewed and collated /
Wellington, v. Ry. Co. 1923 MINI. 48
: and Shraiberg " Hanson, 1873 Min
80. The holder of such a contra,
:, holds land. G.. S. 1913, Sec. 9412 (9)
Hook v. N. w. Thresher Co. 81 Min
4S2. He has an Unbeatable estate !
: land; Starkweather v. Chatfeld, Il
Mich. 444; Harvey v. Donahue, 81 N
141; Williams v. Kenney, 43 Hun
e aft. 118 N. Y. 679. See also Abbott
Moldestad, IA Mimi. 294, 29S; Stear1
div. Kennedy, "a Mimi. 439; Pomerc
e Eq. Sec. 1861. An Unbeatable estat
g in land is an estate of freehold, {
e lis. 1913, Sec. $685., and the holder ,
e an Unbeatable estate is a freeholde
flS5 MINI. SO, 81.
IL Three. The court found that tn
contract was bonafide and in fort
land there is evidence to sustain tn
. finding.
nj Reliance is placed on an isolate
# statement made by Phillip ]. Putrs
ION the stand that there wasn't al