Case Name: STATE ex Rel. SCHOOL DIST. No. 8, UMATILLA COUNTY, v. GOFF et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1924-09-25
Citations: 110 Or. 349
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE ex Rel. SCHOOL DIST. No. 8, UMATILLA COUNTY, v. GOFF et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 349–361

Head Matter:
Argued at Pendleton July 26,
reversed September 25,
argued on rehearing November 27, 1923,
reversed January 14,
motion to recall mandate denied March 4, 1924.
STATE ex Rel. SCHOOL DIST. No. 8, UMATILLA COUNTY, v. GOFF et al.
(218 Pac. 556; 221 Pac. 1057.)
Schools and School Districts — Organization of Union High School from Districts of Different Grades not Permitted by Statute.
1. Section 5305, Or. L., as amended by Laws of 1921, page 594, providing for the formation of a union high school by uniting several districts of the third class, does not permit the formation of a union high school from one district of the third class and other districts not of that grade as so doing would require striking out the words “third class” from the statute.
Elections — Law Permits Legal Voters to Vote on Organization of Union High School District, Though not Taxpayers.
2. Every legal voter residing in the district has the right to vote on the question of the organization of a union high school district, irrespective of the fact that such voter is not a taxpayer.
ON REHEARING.
Schools and School Districts — Two School Districts cannot Exist in Same Territory at Same Time.
3. No two governmental quasi corporations, such as two sehool districts, can exist for the same purpose in the same territory at same time.
Schools and School Districts — Formation of New District on Same Day Former One Dissolved Held not to Indicate Both in Existence at Same Time.
4. That judgment dissolving high school district was rendered same day petitions were filed with boundary board asking for formation of new high sehool, in which districts were identical with previous one, held not to indicate that previous district was in existence when new proceeding was commenced.
Schools and School Districts — Property Qualification not Requisite of Elector on Onganization of High School District.
5. Section 5298, Or. L., defining legal voters in sehool districts as those who can legally vote for sehool officers in their respective districts, means that the definition of legal voters who can so vote is to be found in the law prevailing at the time the voter exercises his franchise, whenever or wherever enaeted; and therefore, on the question whether petitioners for a high sehool district must have- property qualifications, held that Section 5140, defining voters in school districts, and providing that property qualifications imposed by that section shall not apply in the election of school directors and clerks, governed, rather than Section 5298.
Quo Warranto — School Districts not Authorized to Act as Relators in Quo Warranto.
6. School districts are not authorized to engage in litigation as relators in quo warranto to require high school district to show authority for formation by uniting relator with other school districts.
Quo Warranto — Private Citizen may Institute Quo Warranto Against High School District and Officers.
7. Private citizens may bring quo warranto against a high school district and its officers to require them to show respectively by what authority it existed and they exereised powers of officers thereof.
Estoppel — Director not Estopped from Bringing Quo Warranto to Show Authority for Formation of High School District.
8. In quo warranto to require showing of authority for formation of high school district, defense that director of district assisted in incurring indebtedness, on account of which he should be es-topped from aeting as relator did not show that defendants were damaged in any proceeding because of director’s conduct, and if constituting defense it was only pro tanto so far as affecting other relators.
From Umatilla: Fred W. "Wilson, Judge.
In Bauc.
Reversed.
For appellants there was a brief over the names of Mr. Roscoe I. Keator, District Attorney, Mr. James ID. Zurcher, Messrs. Fee S Fee and Mr. S. A. Lowell, with oral arguments by Mr. Lowell and Mr. Janies A. Fee, Jr.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Raley, Raley & Steiwer, Mr. William J. Warner and Mr. Harold J. Warner, with oral arguments by Mr. Janies Roy Raley and Mr. Frederick Steiwer.

Opinion:
McBRIDE, C. J.
This was a proceeding in the nature of quo warraoito brought against the defendants, pretending to exercise the duties of school directors and clerk, respectively, of an alleged Union High School District No. 5 of Umatilla County, Oregon; with the further object of having the alleged district declared nonexistent and the defendants incapable of exercising the duties of school directors and clerk therein.
The whole case turns upon the construction of certain sections of the Oregon Laws, and while questions other than the construction of these statutes are discussed we deem them unimportant in view of our construction of the statutes, which will be hereinafter quoted.
Section 5305, Oregon Laws (Olson's Compilation), among other things, provides:
"(a) If a union high school is formed by uniting two districts of the third class, the school board of each of such districts shall be ex-officio members of the union high school board.
" (b) If formed by any other combination of districts, the chairman of each school board shall be a member of the union high school board until the next annual school meeting, then there shall be elected from each district one member of the union high school board. # * "
This section was amended by Chapter 316 of the Laws of 1921 so that it now reads as follows:
"Section 1. That section 5305 of the Oregon Laws be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows :
' ' Sec. 5305. Union High School Board, How Constituted. (a) If a union high school is formed by uniting two districts of the third class, the school board of each of such districts shall be ex-officio members of the union high school board.
"(b) If formed by uniting more than two and less than six districts of the 'third class, the chairman of each school board shall be ex-officio a member of the union high school board.
"(c) If formed by uniting more than five districts of the third class, the union high school board shall consist of five members, having the qualifications of school directors, to be elected at large from said union high school districts; provided, that not more than one member shall be elected from any district.
"(d) At the election for the organization of a union high school district composed by uniting more than five districts, and at the next annual election for union high school districts composed of more than five districts heretofore organized under the union high school act, there shall be elected five members of the union high school board. "
It will be seen that this amendment entirely leaves out of view and fails to provide for the organization of union high school districts excepting by a combination of districts of the third class, and if we take the statute as it reads there is now no provision for uniting districts of the third class with districts of the first and second class.
One of the districts included in this attempted organization of Union High School District No. 5 was a district of the third class. The other districts were not of that grade. It was earnestly contended that the legislature could not have intended to prevent the organization of a high school district including districts of different classes, but that we should treat the amendment which eliminates the combination of districts of different classes as a clerical mistake and not intended by the legislature.
We are unable to accede to this view. To do this we would be required not only to strike out the words "third class" wherever they occur in the amendment, but to insert subdivision (b) of Section 5305 as it existed prior to the amendment. This would be judicial legislation, pure and simple. We have carefully examined the journals of the two houses and noted the course of the amendment of 1921 and find that it was introduced in precisely the shape in which it now appears and that the bill was referred to committees of both houses and reported back without any amendment or change and was passed in exactly the condition in which it appears in the Session Laws of 1921. This would seem to preclude the idea that there was any mistake or oversight in the framing of the measure or that its consequences were not intended by the legislature. While able and plausible arg-uments have been made by counsel for defendants pointing out, or attempting to point out, the alleged absurd consequences of a literal construction of the statute, it does not appear to us that these results are so absurd as to justify us in holding that the legislature did not intend to use the language employed by the framers of the measure. The language is plain, capable of being understood by any legislator possessing ordinary common sense, and we assume that every member has at least that; and if, viewing it in the light of its practical administration, the amendment has produced a result which experience now shows to have been bad, such result is not uncommonly the case with experimental legislation.
We regret the consequences which must follow by adhering to the literal construction of the act inasmuch as it appears that a large majority of the legal voters of all the districts desired to organize a union high school district, but we see no remedy except an appeal to the legislature.
We are of the opinion, after examining the various amendments as the law now stands, that every legal voter residing in the district has the right to vote upon, the question of the organization of a union high school district, irrespective of the fact that such voter is not a taxpayer, but in view of the fact that District No. 5 was not properly organized we are compelled to reverse the decree of the Circuit Court and enter a decree declaring the pretended organization of Union High School District No. 5 to be void and such district nonexistent, and, further, that the defendants have no right to exercise any duties as officers of such pretended district.
Reversed on Rehearing.
For appellants there was a brief over the names of Mr. S. A. Lowell and Messrs. Fee & Fee, with oral arguments by Mr. Lowell and Mr. James A. Fee, Jr.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Raley, Raley & Steiwer, with oral arguments by Mr. James Roy Raley and Mr. Frederick Steiwer.
Reversed and Degree Entered.