Title: BARNARD v McINERNEY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12407
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 21, 1973

No. 12407 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA L L O Y D BARNARD, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, IRMA McINERNEY, E A R L DALEY, HOWARD C O R N W E L L and JOHN MAXNESS, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Seventeenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Alfred B. Coate, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Morrison, E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana J. Chan E t t i e n argued, Havre, Montana For Respondents: Gordon T. White, County Attorney, Glasgow, Montana Francis Gallagher argued, Special Assistant County Attorney, Glasgow, Montana Lawrence Miyasato argued, Deputy County Attorney, Glasgow , Montana , Submitted: May 30, 1973 Decided : -JW 2 1 7973 Filed :*m 2 1 1 9 7 3 M r , J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from denial of a w r i t of mandamus t o compel Valley County Commissioners and School Superintendent t o allow joinder of t e r r i t o r y from Hinsdale High School D i s t r i c t i n Valley County, t o Saco High School D i s t r i c t i n P h i l l i p s County, Saco Elementary School D i s t r i c t 12A i s a j o i n t elementary d i s t r i c t located i n P h i l l i p s County and Valley County. The school i s i n Saco, which i s i n P h i l l i p s County, Residents of t h e Valley County portion of Saco Elementary D i s t r i c t 12A have f o r many years a l s o sent t h e i r high school students t o Saco, though t h e i r t e r r i t o r y i s a p a r t of Hinsdale High School D i s t r i c t 7C, whose high school i s i n Hinsdale, p a r t of Valley County. Valley County pays such students' t u i t i o n t o t h e Saco High School. P l a i n t i f f Lloyd Barnard and a majority of h i s fellow r e s i - dents of the Valley County portion of the Saco Elementary D i s t r i c t 12A, being qualified under the provisions of sections 75-6525 and 75-6526, R.C.M. 1947, petitioned the Valley County Superinten- dent f o r transfer of t h e i r portion t o the Saco High School D i s t r i c t , s t a t i n g t h e i r reasons f o r the baundary changes, That p e t i t i o n s t a t e s : "Petitioners request t h a t the above described lands be joined t o Saco High School D i s t r i c t #12B t o form a j o i n t High School D i s t r i c t under t h e pro- visions of Section 184 (75-6525) and 185 (75-6526) of Senate B i l l No. 1, 42nd Montana Legislative Assembly, f o r the following reasons : "1. Petitioners a r e residents, taxpayers and voters within the above described t e r r i t o r y . "2. There i s no high school i n Hinsdale High School D i s t r i c t within three ( 3 ) m i l e s of the above described t e r r i t o r y . "3. The taxable value of the above described t e r r i t o r y i s about $321,000.00, "1f t h i s p e t i t i o n is granted, the remaining taxable value of Hinsdale High School D i s t r i c t would be approximately $2,000,000.00, "Increased costs to all of the taxpayers of the remaining Hinsdale District would be about two and one- fourth ( 2 1/4) mills, and there would be no hazard to its continued operation. "valley County would be relieved of paying yearly tuition to Saco High School District at the rate of $300.00 per high school student in the above described territory, a present total of $1,800.00. 11 A number of the petitioners have land outside said territory which would still be subject to taxation by the Hinsdale High School District. 4 There are six ( 6 ) high school students from the above described territory, all of whom go to the Saco High School, "5. All of the elementary students from the above territory go to Saco elementary school. " 6 . The telephone exchange for the above described territory is Saco. " 7 . Mail service for the above described territory is from Saco. "8. School bus service is now provided all stu- dents from said territory to Saco. "The average travel distance for students from said territory to Saco is six ( 6 ) miles. h he average distance to Hinsdale would be twelve ( 1 2 ) miles, and would cost Hinsdale District approxi- mately $1,000.00 per year in additional bussing costs. "Travel expense for the above students and their parents to Hinsdale for extra curricular school activi- ties would approximately double those for Saco, estimated by one parent to be an additional $75.00 per year. "9. Saco is the trading center for all parents and children from said territory. "10, While taxpayers for the above described lands pay their proportionate share of taxes for Hinsdale High School District, (a) they receive no benefit from its operation; ( b ) they are deprived of all vote for Trustees; ( c ) they have no voice nor vote in its operation. "11. If said territory is established as a part of the Saco High School District, petitioners and other residents of the above described territory would; ( a ) have the right to vote for its Trustees; ( b ) have representation in the Saco High School Board; ( c ) in all events, would have voice and vote in Saco operations. "12, At the present, petitioners are unable to vote for the Trustees in either the Hinsdale or Saco districts, tho supporting both district school systems by their taxes, "13. If the students within the described terri- tory attended Hinsdale High School, bus service by Hinsdale would be in excess of the one hour trip limita- tion. 1 I Present bus service from Saco is well within the one hour limitation. "14, Winter bus service is often hazardous. "Bus mileage from Hinsdale being double that of Saco, would increase the risks to students from the described area if attending school in Hinsdale, II At the hearing on the petition, the trustees and some of the residents of the other territory of the Hinsdale High School District appeared in opposition, The Valley County Superintendent found that the reasons given by petitioners were not sufficient to grant the change and denied the petition. He also found the increased burden to the taxpayers of the remainder of the Hinsdale District would be detrimental, unfair, and of consequence. Appeal was made to the Valley County Board of Commissioners and it made findings identical to those of the Superintendent, plus a projection of declining school population within the area proposed for transfer. Plaintiff then brought a writ of mandamus to the district court to compel the county officials to agree to the proposed change. The district court, upon consideration of the record before the Valley County Board of Commissioners, affirmed the Board and dismissed the writ. From that decision, plaintiff brings this appeal. Although appellant lists three issues for review in his brief, we find they can be combined into two issues: ( 1 ) In denying the petition to transfer territory from the Hinsd.ale School District in Valley County to the Saco District in Phillips County, did the Valley County Board of Commissioners abuse its discretion? ( 2 ) Was the district court correct in dismissing and discharging the Alternative Writ of Mandamus? A s t o issue (1) and the r e a l basis of t h i s appeal--was i t an abuse of discretion by the county o f f i c i a l s ? In the petition fourteen points w e r e l i s t e d i n support of the proposed move. W e shall briefly deal with those points t o determine i f the Valley County o f f i c i a l s abused their discretion. Points 1 through 4 s t a t e jurisdictional matters. These four points a r e not reasons o r grounds for the transfer of the territory; they a r e requirements which must be met before the petition can be considered. Appellant argues i n h i s brief regarding point 5 that the tuition statutes sections 75-6313, 75-6314, and 75-6316, R.C,M, 1947, provide reasons for changing schoal d i s t r i c t boundaries o r transferring t e r r i t o r y from one school d i s t r i c t t o another. H e contends point 5 i s controlled by section 75-6313, R.C.M. 1947, and i s therefore authority t o grant the change. But, we a r e not concerned here with the payment of elementary tuition, which is the subject of section 75-6313. W e are concerned with the transfer of t e r r i t o r y from one high school d i s t r i c t t o another, across county lines, Appellant's argument i s not applicable t o the facts of the instant case. Appellant next argues that points 6 through 9 a r e factors recognized under section 75-6314, R,C.M. 1947, another elementary tuition statute, and that the county superintendent was incorrect i n not considering these items as factors requiring the transfer of the territory, O f t h e four points 6 through 9, only two points 8 and 9 are specifically l i s t e d i n section 75-6314, Points 6 and 7 concerning the telephone exchange and mail service are not l i s t e d i n section 75-6314. A s t o points 8 and 9 which are l i s t e d i n the statute, w e note appellant i s again relying on an elementary school tuition statute as a reason for transferring t e r r i t o r y from one high school d i s t r i c t t o another, W e do not find that the Valley County o f f i c i a l s abused their discretion i n not following a statute which i s not applicable. Appellant a l s o r e l i e s on section 75-6521, R.C.M. 1947. That s t a t u t e deals with school d i s t r i c t boundary changes within a county and has nothing t o do with the formation of a j o i n t high school d i s t r i c t . Points 10, 1 1 and 12 of the p e t i t i o n , l i s t e d a s reasons f o r transferring the t e r r i t o r y by appellant, r e l a t e t o voting r i g h t s of the petitioners. Appellant c i t e s Box v. Duncan, 98 Mont. 216, 223, 38 P.2d 986, a s authority. Box had t o do with the consolida- - t i o n of two high schools within the same county; the consolidation having been ordered by the county commissioners without a hearing. This Court held t h a t the action was void because the consolidation took place a t a time during the year when such action on the part u f the commissioners was prohibited by s t a t u t e . It i s t r u e t h a t in - Box t h i s Court s a i d the s i t u a t i o n there was one which would c o n s t i t u t e a rather extreme instance of taxation without representa- tion; but the Court went on immediately t o q u a l i t y t h a t by saying: I I W e do not assume t o say, f o r the purposes of t h i s opinion, t h a t the r e s u l t s we have mentioned have any controlling e f f e c t i n the decision of t h i s appeal," W e do nat then consider the language c i t e d by appellant a s con- t r o l l i n g , I n any event, the s i t u a t i o n i n Box i s not t h a t of the - i n s t a n t case. I n the instant case the residents of the Beaverton area do have the r i g h t t o vote upon special l e v i e s i n the Hinsdale High School D i s t r i c t , Although it i s t r u e they have no vote f o r t r u s t e e s , t h a t came about by the action of t h e Beaverton area taxpayers when they petitioned t h e i r elementary d i s t r i c t out of Valley County and i n t o P h i l l i p s County. Here, w e do not find any form of taxation without representation and there was no abuse of discretion on the p a r t of the Valley county o f f i c i a l s . Point 13 of the p e t i t i o n deals with students traveling i n k2xcess of one hour on the bus i n order t o get t o school. Appellant r e l i e s on section 75-7008, R.C.M. 1947, which again deals with elementzry students and not high school students a s t o bus riding time limitations, W e note t h a t section 75-7008 provides the condition can be waived by the parent o r guardian. But, since the s t a t u t e deals with elementary students, it is not pertinent here, Point 14 of the p e t i t i o n has t o do with road conditions. Again, appellant has used elementary t u i t i o n s t a t u t e s a s authority, Appellant argues t h a t reasons f o r paying t u i t i o n c o n s t i t u t e reasons f o r changing school d i s t r i c t boundaries o r transferring t e r r i t o r y from one school d i s t r i c t t o another. Notwithstanding appellant's argument, it was c l e a r from the evidence t h a t Valley County school o f f i c i a l s a r e concerned about the safety of the children and do a l l i n t h e i r power t o protect them. A l l t h i s evidence was presented t o the county superintendent, the county commissioners and the d i s t r i c t court, They made t h e i r decisions t h a t there was no reason t o change the boundary based on the question of danger t o the children. W e find nothing in the evidence which indicates the o f f i c i a l s abused t h e i r discretion i n making t h a t decision. W e have reviewed the p e t i t i o n and the order denying t h a t petition. A s s t a t e d heretofore our review goes t o the question of whether the Valley County officia Is abused t h e i r discretion. W e find nothing i n the record which would indicate any abuse of discretion. The second issue on appeal concerns whether the d i s t r i c t court was correct i n dismissing and discharging the Alternative W r i t of Mandamus. The d i s t r i c t court, i n e f f e c t , sustained the action of the Valley County o f f i c i a l s by dismissing the w r i t . This i s not a case where the Valley County o f f i c i a l s were t o perform a ministerial duty. Rather, the duty was t o exercise discretion, The function of the d i s t r i c t court was t o determine whether o r not the Valley County o f f i c i a l s manifestly abused t h a t discretion, The general r u l e and the qualification of the general r u l e with respect t o mandamus actions was c l e a r l y s e t f o r t h by t h i s Court i n Paradise Rainbow v, Fish & Game Comm'n, 148 Mont. 412, "As a general rule mandamus i s available only t o compel performance of a clear legal duty not involving discretion, McCarten v, Sanderson, 1 1 1 Mont, 407, 109 P.2d 1108, 132 A.L.R. 1229. I But even where discretion i s involved, i f there has been such an abuse as t o amount t o no exercise of discretion a t a l l , mandamus w i l l l i e t o compel the proper exercise of the powers granted.' Skaggs Drug Center v. Mont. Liquor Control Board, 146 Mont. 115, 124, 404 P,2d 511, 516. This, court has indicated that arbitrary or capricious action by an administrative board i s an abuse of discretion. State ex r e l . Sanders v. H i l l ( P . E . R , S . ) , 141 Mont. 558, 381 P,2d 475." In Erie v. State Hwy. Comm'n, 154 Mont. 150, 153, 461 P,2d 207, t h i s Court held: sa he rule simply put i s that a board may be en- joined from acting outside the scope of i t s authority and such board may be compelled t o perform an a c t it i s legally bound t o perform; but neither of these extraordinary remedies w i l l l i e t o control the dis- cretion of a board unless it has been clearly shown that the board has manifestly abused such discretion. 1 I It i s clear that the remedy sought i n the instant case w i l l l i e only when it i s shown that there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. F b e have examined that question and find no such abuse. Therefore, the d i s t r i c t court was correct i n denying the Alternative W r i t of Mandamus. The decision of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. Associate Justices.