DocketNumber: No. 34,425.
Citation Numbers: 28 N.W.2d 655, 224 Minn. 432, 1947 Minn. LEXIS 546
Judges: Peterson
Filed Date: 7/25/1947
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The questions for decision are: (1) Whether a school district is under a mandatory duty of providing free transportation of pupils to and from school because of the fact that the questions whether the school district should erect a new building and whether it should provide such free transportation of pupils were combined for submission to the voters and carried as a single question; and (2) whether the school district is estopped from refusing to provide such free transportation of pupils by reason of the fact that the electors voted for the erection of a new school building in reliance upon the supposition that such free transportation would be provided if a new school were built pursuant to such vote. *Page 434
No procedural points have been raised. The facts have been stipulated. In 1933, after defendant's schoolhouse located in the village of Fairhaven had burned, an election was held, at which four propositions were submitted to the electors:
(1) To erect a school building in the village of Fairhaven without providing any school facilities for residents of the eastern end of the district;
(2) To erect two school buildings, one in the village of Fairhaven and one in the eastern end of the district;
(3) To erect a school building in the village of Fairhaven "and provide bus transportation for the children living in the eastern end of the district, * * *"; and
(4) To erect a school building in the village of Fairhaven with permission to the residents of the eastern end of the district to form a new district within limits mentioned.
Question No. 3 was answered in the affirmative by an overwhelming vote.
Thereafter, defendant erected a school building in the village of Fairhaven and for 12 consecutive years afterward provided free bus transportation for pupils. Then, at the beginning of the 1945-1946 school year, it discontinued such transportation. Plaintiffs live in the eastern end of the school district. Transportation of their children to and from school is necessary in order for them to attend school. In providing transportation to and from school for their children after defendant discontinued providing free transportation, plaintiffs have paid or incurred expense in substantial amounts.
Plaintiffs contend that: (1) Although providing free transportation for pupils is ordinarily discretionary with a school district, it ceases to be so and becomes mandatory after the electors have voted in favor of providing such transportation; and (2), because the electors residing in the eastern end of the district voted at one and the same time in favor of both the erection and the providing of free transportation of pupils and thereby incurred liability for part of the cost of the new school building, the school district is *Page 435 estopped to deny that it is obligated to provide such transportation.
1. Under M.S.A. §
2. The duty of determining whether a school district shall provide such transportation is a governmental one of a continuing nature. Unless the rule is altered, so far as concerns its application here, by the facts that the question whether free transportation of pupils should be provided was coupled with the one whether the school district should erect a new school building so as to constitute a single question for purposes of submission to the voters and that the voters by their affirmative answer to the single question submitted in effect answered in the affirmative the one as to whether the school board should provide free transportation of pupils, as well as the one that the school district should erect a new school building, decision must be for the school district under the rule of the Klimek case.
3. Under Minn. Const. art.
It is elementary that a public corporation, agency, or officer to whom governmental power has been delegated by statute cannot redelegate such delegated power. Delegation of governmental power is a manifestation of legislative intention that only the public authority to which the delegation is made, and not some agency or person of its choosing, shall exercise such power. The power of choice is in the legislature, which it has exercised by the very act of delegation. Where there is statutory authorization for submission by a public authority of a question to the voters for their decision, there is no real redelegation of delegated power, but rather a division of the power between the public authority and the voters, under which in the first instance the public authority is required to *Page 437
act with respect to the question, and afterward, upon submission of the question to them, the voters are required to decide whether to approve or disapprove of the action so taken. In such cases, submission of the question to the electorate is mandatory, and the decision of the voters is controlling and binding. Jefferson Highway Transp. Co. v. City of St. Cloud,
Where there is no statutory authorization for submission of a question to the voters for their decision, such a submission by a public authority clothed with power with respect to the question submitted constitutes an unauthorized redelegation of delegated power. In such a case, because the voters lack power with respect to the question submitted and because the public authority lacks the power to confer it upon them, submission of the question to the voters is without legal effect, and their decision is in no way controlling or binding. Galindo v. Walter,
Plaintiffs contend that §
Our conclusion is that the school board here was required by
4. In certain cases the state and its political subdivisions may be estopped the same as an individual. Generally, however, estoppel will not be applied to prevent or hinder the exercise of governmental functions. Where estoppel is applied against a public corporation, it is with respect to acts done in a proprietary capacity. 2 Dunnell, Dig. Supp. § 3211, where our cases are collected. In determining whether free transportation of pupils to and from school should be provided, the school board exercised governmental power. State ex rel. Klimek v. School District,
Affirmed.
Issuance of school district bonds. §
Acquisition of school sites. §
Forming school district in a village. §
Changing school district boundaries. §
Forming consolidated school district. §§
Dissolution of school district. §
Changing an independent district to a common school district. §
State Ex Rel. Klimek v. School District No. 70 , 204 Minn. 279 ( 1939 )
Bunger Ex Rel. Bunger v. Iowa High School Athletic Ass'n , 197 N.W.2d 555 ( 1972 )
In Re Applications to Fix Streetcar Rates of Fare , 228 Minn. 435 ( 1949 )
RK Midway, LLC v. Metropolitan Council ( 2017 )
Board of Education of City of Minneapolis v. Sand , 227 Minn. 202 ( 1948 )
Op. Atty. Gen. 624a-3 ( 1999 )
Op. Atty. Gen. 624a-3 ( 1998 )
Davis v. Pueblo , 158 Colo. 319 ( 1965 )
Morton v. Board of Com'rs of Ramsey County , 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1276 ( 1974 )
In Re Independent School Dist. No. 381 in Lake Cty. , 213 N.W.2d 631 ( 1973 )
Kronschnabel v. City of Saint Paul , 272 Minn. 256 ( 1965 )
Waters v. Putnam , 289 Minn. 165 ( 1971 )
Opinion No. Oag 8-85, (1985) , 74 Op. Att'y Gen. 45 ( 1985 )