Case Name: James Thomas v. Robert Gibson, 3d
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1839-07
Citations: 11 Vt. 607
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Thomas v. Robert Gibson, 3d.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 607–609

Head Matter:
James Thomas v. Robert Gibson, 3d.
When a school district has been organized, in fact, for a number of years, and has chosen its officers from time to time, the selectmen cannot organize it again, as an unorganized district, because doubts were entertained ol the regularity of the former organization.
If such new organization is irregular and void as to any part of the inhabitants of the district, it is so as to all, and a person is not prevented from contesting the proceedings under such organization, or the authority of the officers, because- he was moderator of a meeting under such new organization.
This was an action of tréspass, for taking the plaintiff’s heifer. The taking was admitted. The defendant attempted to justify the taking, as collector of school district No. 2, in the town of Ryegate. For this purpose, he gave in evidence the records of said school district.
It appeared that said school district had been organized as early as the year 1811, and was in existence as a school district until the month of April, 1837, when some of the inhabitants of the district, entertaining doubts of its legal organization, made application to the select men of the town and the district was re-organized. This new organization was, at the time, acquiesced in by the voters of the district, with the exception of one or two individuals, and by the plaintiff, who acted as moderator at a number of subsequent meetings, which were very fully attended. One of the committee in existence at the time of the new organization was re-appointed and the others either declined, or acquiesced in being superseded. The cleric declined a re-appointment, on account of scruples of conscience in regard to being sworn by a civil magistrate, and the district proceeded to vote a tax and expended the money. The committee made a tax bill and caused a warrant to be appended in due form, which was given to the defendant to collect, he being appointed collector under the new organization. The defendant proceeded in the collection of the tax against the plaintiff, and, as stated in his return, distrained and sold the heifer in question. It appeared that just before the commencement of this suit the plaintiff and two others applied to the clerk of the school district prior to the new organization to warn a school meet ing, who declined to act. It appeared that less than a majority of the legal voters in the district were present at the time of the new organization, and that one who was present was opposed to the new organization.
Upon the facts above stated, the county court rendered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted.
A. Underwood and Fletcher 8f Bartlett, for plaintiff.
J. Mattocks, for defendant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, C. J.
This case brings in question the legality of the proceedings of a school district in Ryegate. We are always disposed to support the doings and proceedings of these minor corporations when it can be done. I do not mean to criticise them with too much nicety, but still, when we are called upon to decide upon their acts, and a decision either way will leave one of their proceedings indefensible, we must do it.
In this case, it appears the district was organized in the year 1811, whether legally or not is a matter of. no importance, as they have acted and have been recognized as a district ever since : that they chose their officers from time to time, and in October, 1836, chose their clerkr committee and collector, who by the statute, were to continue in office one year, and until others were chosen, and that at a regular meeting on the sixteenth of April, 1837, they voted to build a school house.
In the month of April, 1837, it appears some doubts were entertained in relation to the organization of the district, when application was made to the selectmen of the town, who proceeded to organize it anew. That was done at a meeting when there were less than a majority of the legal voters present, and although it was assented to generally, one or two individuals did not consent. The old officers were generally superseded. Under this new organization the tax was voted which is now resisted by the plaintiff.
As this district had been in existence as a corporation for a number of years, and had chosen their officers, the new organization, as it is termed, was unauthorized and illegal. The selectmen have no authority to interfere, and call a meeting, except in unorganized school districts. Their pro ceedings in the new organization, cannot, therefore, be recognized, nor the officers chosen in pursuance of such new organization. There has not been an acquiescence in the new, and an abandonment of the old organization, for any length of time,so that the court can treat the new one as regular. If the plaintiff has presided as moderator of the school district under the organization made by the selectmen, though it may place him in an unfavorable light, yet, it cannot affect his legal rights. There cannot be one district with one set of officers for him and one part of the district, and another for the other part. As the second or new organization, as it is called, was not warranted by the statute, and has not been in operation a sufficient time, without objection, to be adopted as an organization in fact, the defendant is without justification.
The judgment of the county court is, therefore, reversed.