Case Name: Consolidated School District No. 105, Snohomish County et al., Respondents, v. Lizzie Jones, as Superintendent of Schools of Snohomish County, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1912-08-19
Citations: 69 Wash. 537
Docket Number: No. 10568
Parties: Consolidated School District No. 105, Snohomish County et al., Respondents, v. Lizzie Jones, as Superintendent of Schools of Snohomish County, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 537–538

Head Matter:
[No. 10568.
Department One.
August 19, 1912.]
Consolidated School District No. 105, Snohomish County et al., Respondents, v. Lizzie Jones, as Superintendent of Schools of Snohomish County, Appellant.
Schools and School Distbicts—School Supeeintendents— Powees—Consolidation op Districts. In the absence of statutory-authority, the county school superintendent has no power to dissolve a consolidated school district, whether the consolidation was legal or illegal.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Snohomish county, Bell, J., entered July 13, 1912, granting an injunction as prayed for upon overruling a demurrer to the complaint.
Affirmed.
Ralph C. Bell, for appellant.
Reported in 125 Pac. 767.

Opinion:
Chadwick, J.
On the 20th day of July, 1910, School District No. 20 of Snohomish county, forming with other districts Union High School District No. 103, consolidated with School District No. 30 of the same county, which formed with the other districts Union High School District No. 100. The consolidated districts are known as Consolidated School District No. 105. The defendant, as county superintendent, has threatened to dissolve the consolidated district, for the reason that the two districts were consolidated without warrant or authority of law, and the present action was' instituted by the board of directors of the consolidated district to enjoin such threatened action on her part. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and the defendant electing to stand on her demurrer and refusing to plead over, final judgment was entered, granting a permanent injunction as prayed. From this judgment, the defendant has appealed, and by stipulation the appeal is submitted to this court on a transcript of the record and the appellant's brief.
The question sought to be raised by the appeal is the right of two school districts, lying in different union high school districts, to consolidate under the law permitting consolidation in certain cases, but we do not think that appellant can raise that question. The two districts have been, in fact, consolidated, and we are cited to no provision of the law authorizing the county school superintendent to dissolve a consolidated district, whether the consolidation be legal or illegal. In the absence of a statute conferring such power on the superintendent, the district can only be dissolved by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction in a quo warranto or other appropriate proceeding.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the question thus presented, the judgment must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Gose, Parker, and Crow, JJ., concur.