State Ex Rel. Consolidated School District No. 2 v. Ingram
298 S.W. 37
Mo.
1927
Check Treatment

THE STATE EX REL. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 ET AL., Aрpellants, v. ANNIE INGRAM ET AL.

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 16, 1927

317 Mo. 1141 | 298 S.W. 37

Division One

The witness made no tender to the City Treasurer or other official of the amount due and made no demand on the City Treasurer or othеr official for a redemption certificate. But it is argued it would have been useless to make the tender for the certificate of redemрtion would have been refused. We do not find in the testimony of the witness any evidence so indicating. On demand it is the duty of the Auditor to furnish a statement setting forth the аmount of money necessary to redeem the land. Upon the filing of such statement with the City Treasurer and the payment to him of said sum, it is his duty to deliver to such person a certificate of redemption. [Section 35, Charter of Kansas City, 1909.] All the witness did was to confer with an official in the Auditor‘s office who told him thе five years had expired and it was too late to redeem the land under the provisions of the charter. In this connection it should be noted that аn owner of land sold for taxes has five years from the first day on which the annual tax sale began or at any time before the execution and delivery of the tax deed to the purchaser to redeem the land. [Section 34, Charter of Kansas City, 1909.] The Auditor‘s office was not asked for a statement of the amount due. We must assume the official would have furnished the statement if he had been asked to do so. We must also assume the City Treasurer would have issued the certificate of redemption if the money due had been tendered. The amount due was not tendered and he was not asked for the сertificate. There is no evidence to support the allegation that a tender was made or that if made it would have been refused.

It is admitted the tax deed is regular on its face, and that all the proceedings leading up to the sale of the lots for taxes due in 1916 were regular. The deеd vested in appellant an absolute estate in fee simple in said lots. [Section 39, Charter of Kansas City, 1909.] Appellant stands on his tax deed, and therе is no proof to sustain the judgment.

It follows the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‍to enter judgment for appellant against all thе defendants.

All concur.

THE STATE EX REL. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 ET AL., Appellants, v. ANNIE INGRAM ET AL. - 298 S. W. 37.

Division One, September 16, 1927.

1. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Consolidation of School Districts: Brought against Superintendent. The question submitted at a school election was to change the boundary lines of a consolidated school district so as to take in and include another consolidated school district. A majority of thе voters of the latter voted against the change of the boundaries, and said district attempted to bring suit by certiorari against the County School Supеrintendent and the four members of the board of arbitrators, which had sustained on appeal upon the proposition to change the boundary. The construction of the Constitution is not involved, neither is title to any office under this State, nor is a state officer a party. Held, that this court does not have jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court quashing the order of the board.

2. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: County Superintendent. The making of the County School Superintendent a party to a proceeding to annul an order of a board of arbitrators consolidating school districts does not ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‍give this court jurisdiction from a judgment quashing the order. The office is one “under this State,” but she is not a “state officer,” and her title to the office is not involved in suсh a proceeding.

3. ——: ——: School District: Political Subdivision. A school district, in a judicial sense, is not a political subdivision of the State, and making it a party to a suit does not give this court appellate jurisdiction.

4. ——: ——: Raised by Court. The question of appellate jurisdiction of this court cannot be ignored, thоugh in no wise raised by the parties.

Corpus Juris-Cyc. References: Appeal and Error, 4 C. J., Section 3057, p. 1067, n. 15. Courts, 15 C. J., Section 101, p. 804, n. 7; Section 171, p. 852, n. 77; Section 511, p. 1080, n. 52, 55; р. 1081, n. 56; Section 519, p. 1093, n. 70.

Appeal from Pike Circuit Court. - ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‍Hon. Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.

TRANSFERRED TO ST. LOUIS COURT OF APPEALS.

A. J. Murphy, Jr., Ras Pearson and May & May for appellants.

Frank J. Duvall and Hostetter & Haley for respondents.

LINDSAY, C. - This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Pike County quashing a writ of certiоrari previously issued, and directed to Annie Ingram as County Superintendent of Schools of Pike County, and four members of the board of arbitrators seleсted by her which had sustained an appeal, upon a proposition to change boundary lines.

Consolidated School District No. 2 and Consolidаted School District No. 4 in Pike County were contiguous, and the question submitted and voted upon was “to change the boundary lines of said Consolidated Schоol District No. 4, by taking into and including in said Consolidated School District No. 4 all the territory now included in said Consolidated School District No. 2.” There was a majоrity for the change in Consolidated School District No. 4, but not a majority in Consolidated School District No. 2. There is discussion in the briefs of the question whether thе board of arbitrators had jurisdiction, and whether the question submitted to the voters in the respective districts was one authorized by the statute. [Secs. 11201, 11253, R. S. 1919.]

The аpplication for the writ was made in the name of Consolidated School District No. 2, and the respondent by motion raised the question of authority of any one to make the said District No. 2 the relator. The ground was that after the said election, and before filing the petition, there was no meeting of the board of directors of Consolidated School District ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‍No. 2, and no action of the majority of them authorizing the application for the writ. The court, upon that theory, permitted three individuals, who were or had been directors of Consolidated School District No. 2, as citizens and taxрayers of that district, to be made parties; and permitted them to adopt as their own, the allegations of the petition.

The question of the appellate jurisdiction of this court was not raised in the briefs, nor in oral argument. Nevertheless, the question of jurisdiction cannot be ignored. There is not involved in the case the construction of any provision of the Constitution, nor is there involved “the title to any office under this State,” nor is a “state оfficer” a party.

Annie Ingram as county superintendent is a party, but her title to the office is in no way involved. The office is one “under this State,” and if her title to the office were involved in the case, appellate jurisdiction would be vested in this court. [

;
,
,
;
;
;
;
.] She is not a “state officer” as those words are used in Section 12 of Article VI of the Constitution. Those words refer only to officers whose official duties and functions are coextensive with the bоundaries of the State. [
;
;
;
;
;
.]

The question of our appellate jurisdiction in all cases in which there is involved “the title ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‍to any office under this State” is fully discussed in the opinion by GRAVES, J., in

, and the cases are fully reviewed therein.

It has been uniformly held by this court that a school district is not a “political subdivision” in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution. [Sec. 12, Art. VI.] The question is disсussed in

, and in
. Those cases and others are referred to in the opinion in
. These cases are also referred to in
, a case recently decided in this Division. All the cases hold that a school district, in a judicial sense, is not a political subdivision of the State. That being true, and there being in this case no other ground of appellate jurisdiction in this court, we are bound to hold that this court is without jurisdiction of the cause on appeal. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter cannot be conferred by consent or acquiescence; and there exists the duty to pass upon the question, whether raised or not. [
.] The cause is transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Seddon and Ellison, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM: - The foregoing opinion by LINDSAY, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All of the judges concur.