Case Name: PULLEN v. SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 3
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1920-01-13
Citations: 95 Or. 289
Docket Number: 
Parties: PULLEN v. SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 3.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Bennett and Harris, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 289–299

Head Matter:
Argued November 21, 1919,
affirmed January 13,
rehearing denied February 17, 1920.
PULLEN v. SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 3.
(186 Pac. 9; 187 Pac. 624.)
Schools and. School Districts — Bonds Incontestable After Execution, Registration, and Delivery to Purchaser.
1. Under Laws of 1913, page 299, legality of school district bonds executed, registered and delivered to purchaser as there provided after an election for their issuance, are incontestable, in the absence of fraud or some fatal defect in the proceedings, known to the purchaser at or before purchase.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Schools and School Districts — Contest of Bond Issue Election not Provided for.
2. Contests of election are authorized by statute only as between nominees claiming election to an office, and are not provided as such respecting elections about measures submitted to the people, as an issuance of bonds by a school district.
Schools and School Districts — No Contest of School District Bond Issue Election in Absence of Statutory Authority.
3. In the absence of statute permitting contest of an election whereby school district bonds1 were authorized, the Supreme Court cannot admit the legitimacy of contestants’ complaint, and the question of whether or not certain voters were authorized to vote is not available to contestants; the decision of the election tribunal created by Laws of 1913, Chapter 172, Section 2, to decide such matters being ikial in the absence of fraud.
Schools and School Districts — Determination of Judges of Bond Issue Election as to Validity Conclusive on Collateral Attack.
4. Where judges and a clerk were properly chosen pursuant to Laws of 1913, Chapter 172, Section 2, to officiate at a school district bond issue election, a determination of such tribunal as to the validity of the election in the absence of fraud must stand as against collateral attack in the absence of any statute affording right of contest, appeal or other review of the decision.
Prom Multnomah.: George W. Stapleton, Judge.
Department 1.
This is a suit wherein it is sought to compel the immediate redemption and cancellation of a bond issue of the defendant school district, and to restrain the ex penditure of the proceeds of the sale of such bonds for any other purpose than such redemption. The plaintiffs base their right to relief upon an alleged conspiracy on the part of all of the defendants, with the exception of the county treasurer, to foist upon the taxpayers of the district the burden of an illegal issue of bonds in the sum of $20,000. The wrongful acts of the conspirators, as set out in the complaint, consist of wrongfully permitting certain residents of the district to vote when in fact they were not qualified electors, because their names did mot appear upon the last assessment-roll as the owners of property subject to taxation, and they were permitted to vote by virtue of their membership in a local corporation known as the Greater Barkrose Club, which did own real estáte in the district, subject to taxation, as disclosed by the last assessment-roll. It is averred that this corporation does not issue stock, shares, or evidences of ownership to its members, and has no authority so to do, and no member thereof has any ownership in the corporation or its property. It is alleged that a true canvass and return of the votes cast by qualified electors would have disclosed a substantial majority against the issue of bonds. It is further asserted that the conspirators disobeyed the statute giving the state land board the preferential right to purchase the bonds at par, in that the bonds were sold at par without first offering them to the state land board. The allegations of the complaint enter into great detail, as to the part taken by the several defendants in the various steps which are claimed to have been illegal.
There were four separate answers filed by the defendants in logically related groups, all of which deny participation in any conspiracy, or any illegality in the proceedings or conduct of the several groups. The de fendants Keeler Bros., the purchasers of the bonds, and Fred M. Glenn, their resident agent, pleaded affirmatively that prior to the delivery to them of the bonds, they obtained from the school district a certified copy of all the proceedings relating to the issue and sale of the bonds, wherein the proceedings were certified by the proper officials, and relying thereon, they had paid to the district the sum of $20,400 therefor, without knowledge or notice that there was any defect, error or misstatement in such proceedings, and that before this suit was commenced they sold and at that time had parted with the possession of the bonds and with the title thereto and had no interest therein.
Replies were filed, and a trial was had, resulting in a decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
For appellants there was a brief over the names of Mr. Ralph R. Duniway and Mr. James R. Bain, with an oral argument by Mr. Duniway.
For respondent, School District No. 3, there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Wilson £ Gutherie, with an oral argument by Mr. J. G. Wilson.
For respondents, Keeler Bros, and Fred Glenn, there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Teal, Minor £ Winfree, with an oral argument by Mr. Wirt Minor.
For respondents, Walter U. Evans, District Attorney, and John M. Lewis, there was a brief submitted over the name of Mr. George W. Mowry.

Opinion:
BENSON, J.
There are a number of questions presented and argued upon this appeal, but the view which we take of the matter renders a discussion of many of them unnecessary.
¥e may assume at the outset that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter. Chapter 172 of the Laws of Oregon for 1913 provides that after an election for the issuance of school district bonds—
"All such bonds shall be signed by the chairman of the district school board, attested by the district clerk, and registered by the county treasurer; and the interest coupons thereto annexed shall be signed by said chairman and clerk, by their original or engraved facsimile signatures.
' ' The county treasurer shall register each bond in a book kept for that purpose in his office, noting the school district, amount, date, time and place of payment, rate of interest and such other facts as may be deemed proper, and cause said bonds to be delivered promptly to the purchasers thereof upon payment therefor, and he shall hold the proceeds of the sale of said bonds subject to the order of the district board to be used solely for the purpose for which said bonds were issued; and when said bonds shall have been so executed, registered and delivered, their legality shall not be open to contest by such school district or by any person or corporation for or on its behalf for any reason whatever."
It is not necessary to consider the question of whether or not there may be any legal limitation to the broad language of the last provision above quoted, but it is beyond question that in the absence of fraud or some fatal defect in the proceedings, known to the purchaser of the bonds at the time of, or prior to such purchase, all further questioning is foreclosed. The bonds in the present case were executed, registered and delivered in strict accordance with the requirements of the statute, and after a very careful investigation of the evidence in the case, we find no indication whatever of any conspiracy or any fraud, or that the purchasers of the bonds had any notice or knowledge of any irregularity or defect in the proceedings which resulted in the issue of the bonds.
The decree of the lower court is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
McBride, C. J., and Bennett and Harris, JJ., concur.
Denied February 17, 1920.