Court Opinion

ID: 9553738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:34:08.631385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:08.843315
License: Public Domain

*134Fatzer, J.,
dissenting: In my opinion this case is not correctly decided. The principal question presented is whether the notice bf election first published on May 1, 1958, was published twenty-one days prior to the election which was held on May 22,1958. The court holds it was not, but in my opinion that conclusion disregards the clear and unambiguous terms of G. S. 1957 Supp., 72-2018. What was said in my dissenting opinion in State, ex rel., v. Schmidt, 182 Kan. 593, 596, 322 P. 2d 772 sets forth my views on this question. To reiterate them is unnecessary and that opinion is incorporated herein as grounds for my dissent.
■. In addition, however, I wish to state that in the instant case it is the “first publication” which shall be not less than twenty-one days prior to the election — not “twenty-one clear days” as stated in the majority opinion — and the day of “first publication” is one of those twenty-one days. Therefore, counting May 21, 1958, as the last day prior to the day of election (May 22, 1958) and counting back each day to May 1,1958 (date of first publication), twenty-one days notice of the election was given.
Cases dealing with an appeal from an order of the State Labor Commissioner, the reading of a deposition at a trial in the district court, the time for hearing a suit for divorce, and the commencing of a forcible detainer action are cited in the court’s opinion as bearing upon this question. I have no quarrel with the soundness or correctness of those decisions, but simply state they are not applicable in ascertaining the legislative intent of G. S. 1957 Supp., 72-2018, as to the manner of calculating the time a notice of an election is required to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the school district once each week for three consecutive weeks, “the first publication to be not less than twenty-one days prior to such election.” The statute provides its own measure of calculation, that is, the “first publication” shall be “not less than twenty-one days prior to such election.” The notice calling the election was legally published and I would reverse the judgment of the district court.