DocketNumber: No. 30806. Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Fulton
Filed Date: 11/18/1948
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County, dismissing appellant's complaint in a quo warranto proceeding charging the unlawful and illegal organization of Community Consolidated School District No. 10 in said county. The validity of a statute being involved, the appeal was perfected to this court.
On May 1, 1947, there was filed with the county superintendent of schools of St. Clair County a petition signed by at least 200 voters residing in the territory described in the petition, requesting that said superintendent call an election for the purpose of voting for or against the establishment of a community consolidated school district. The territory described in the petition included fifteen common school districts in St. Clair County. The petition also set forth the maximum tax rates for educational and building purposes which the proposed district would be authorized to levy, stating specifically that said rates were not to exceed .90 per cent of the full, fair, cash value as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue for educational purposes and .25 per cent for building purposes and the purchase of school grounds.
The county superintendent of schools, in compliance with said petition, called an election for Saturday, May 17, 1947, and posted notices thereof. The election was held and, after the returns were canvassed, the county superintendent of schools declared that a majority of the votes cast at said election were in favor of establishing a community *Page 538 consolidated school district, and thereupon called an election for members of a board of education, to consist of a president and six members, to be held on June 14, 1947. At this election the defendant Rayhill Hagist was elected president and the remaining six defendants were elected members. Subsequently the county superintendent of schools designated the district as Community Consolidated School District No. 10, St. Clair County, Illinois.
A complaint in quo warranto was filed in the circuit court of St. Clair County on September 4, 1947, by the State's Attorney of St. Clair County, Louis P. Zerweck, on the relation of Arnold Funk, the plaintiff-appellant, contending that the said president and members of Community Consolidated School District No. 10 in St. Clair County were unlawfully holding and executing the said offices.
The complaint challenged the organization and legal existence of the school district in general and particularly asserts that article 8 of the School Code and certain sections thereof violate the provisions of the State constitution, and that the form of the notice and the type of ballot used at the election were legally insufficient.
On October 10, 1947, a supplement to the complaint was filed questioning the validity of an election called to vote on the detachment of former District No. 82 from the newly formed consolidated district.
On May 14, 1948, after final judgment had been entered by the trial court on April 20, 1948, a second amendment to the complaint was filed, alleging a violation of the School Survey and Reorganization Act.
A motion to dismiss the complaint as amended was filed by the appellees, which motion was allowed, and the complaint as amended was dismissed. From the judgment rendered in favor of the defendants, the appellant prosecutes this appeal.
Appellant first charges that sections 4 and 6 of article 8 of the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1945, chap. 122, pars. *Page 539
8-4, 8-6,) violate section 18 of article II of the constitution of the State of Illinois in that they provide for elections that are not equal, relying primarily on what is said in the case ofMoran v. Bowley,
No such situation arises in this case. There is no attempt to bestow upon classes or sections of voters a greater power and influence in elections than upon other like groups. Our constitution has not provided the mode by which the thorough and efficient system of free schools required to be provided shall be organized, nor the officers by whom its affairs shall be administered. In People ex rel. Russell v. Graham,
It is next contended that article 8 of the School Code violates section 22 of article IV of the constitution, because it limits the organization of community school districts to territory bounded by school district lines, citing as authority the case ofPeople ex rel. Kane v. Weis,
It is further urged that the form of notice for the election and the type of ballot used were fatally defective because the maximum and minimum tax rates set forth were in direct conflict with the provisions of section 2 of article 17 of the School Code and of section 162a of the Revenue Act. Section 1 of article 8 specifically provides the *Page 541 maximum rates applicable to community consolidated school districts and provides that they shall be set forth in the petition. This section was passed and approved on July 25, 1945, to take effect January 1, 1946. (Laws of 1945, p. 1618.) It applies only to districts organized under article 8 of the School Code. The rates thus provided differ from the maximum rates set forth in section 2 of article 17 of the School Code. That section was passed and approved on July 25, 1945, to take effect on January 1, 1946, (Laws of 1945, p. 1564,) the same date as section 8-1, with which it is claimed to be inconsistent. Standing alone, section 2 of article 17 would seem to apply to all school districts.
In similar situations this court has announced frequently the rule that statutes passed, approved and to take effect on the same day, and relating to the same subject matter, will be assumed to have been enacted at the same time and are to be construed as one act. Such construction should be given to such statutes, if possible, as shall leave them all standing. Peopleex rel. Reynolds v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co.
The form of the notice and ballot used in this case conformed strictly to the statute and were literally correct. On July 2, 1947, "An Act to legalize the organization of certain Community Consolidated School Districts" was approved, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1947, chap. 122, par. 407.14,) and under the authority of People
v. Birdsong,
The remaining objection urged by appellant is that the county superintendent of schools was without power to *Page 542
call an election because, at the time, the school survey committee was functioning in St. Clair County and had not yet completed its report. This question was considered by us in the case of Radford v. Withrow,
The judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
The People v. Birdsong ( 1947 )
People Ex Rel. Martin v. Village of Oak Park ( 1939 )
People Ex Rel. Boozell v. Coronet Insurance ( 1998 )
City of Waukegan v. Stanczak ( 1955 )
People Ex Rel. McLain v. Gardner ( 1951 )
People Ex Rel. Vuagniaux v. City of Edwardsville ( 1996 )
In Re Coronet Ins. Co. ( 1998 )
People ex rel. Vuagniaux v. City of Edwardsville ( 1996 )
Young v. Red Clay Consolidated School District ( 2015 )