*1 182 cases affirma- In each these described circumstances.

the tive action the rule of applying by the basis involved was the cities jurisdictions, estoppel. from other As decisions Incorporated rely they principally Bridges v. on the case study 917. Our View, 158Iowa N.W. of Grand Town holding fact- persuades resulted from case us that its of that foreign present. cases other ual not here circumstances distinguishable. similarly annotation cited are specifically them, states that does it A.L.R. referred to respect questions estoppel generally extend to kind 'here involved. encroachments challenges appeal of the The cross defendants right-of- protrudes building finding into the court’s way on the claim that Main Street. This is bottomed East accepted survey of the court the area in showing should have Correct the question the defendants made witness for right-of-way, no obstruction of rather than city’s aside witness. set one made only they clearly findings of fact are erroneous. if SDCL 15-6-52(a). say concerning one. are We unable question determination involved court’s fact trial ample support record. Accordingly, portion we reverse that city questioned by appeal affirm challenged by defendants. cross Judges

All concur. Respondent DIST., VALE al., IND. SCHOOL v. SMEENK et Ap EDUCATION, BUTTE members of the CO. BD. of pellant 117)

(179 (File Opinion August 1970) No. *2 n Fourche, Belle for defendant E. Anderson, Wm. appellant. respondent. Sturgis, plaintiff

Dale Morman, L. Presiding Judge. ROBERTS, from involves transfers the Newell School District to County. existing District, then appears upon were based that the transfers nine May April, petitions resident electors filed in and June pursuant Supp. of SDC 13-6-85). (SDCL 2017(1) by Chap. 45, amended *3 amended statute reads follows: change, boundary affecting

“A more minor not per than cent of valuation of the five the assessed taken, from which the area is to application boundary upon be made an a made board in the education to of petition signed by fifty per form of a over of cent residing the area electors in to be transferred boundary change.” such Independent Vale School District the circuit from notices of to the decisions of County granting the Butte Board of Education the nine boundary changes payment requiring and from an of order taxes Newell the Vale district collected district on proceed- the lands involved in the transfers. The several ings upon stipulation were of counsel consolidated for the purpose trial. The Vale district school contended in the court below that the exceeded board abused its and discretion statutory authority granting petitions in authority such was and that board without direct the to from transfer of assets one school district to another. The matters were submitted to circuit court stipulated on- facts introduction of evidence. The trial findings court made conclusions of law and en- fact and. judgment Independent favor tered of the Vale School District. “the among that found facts, court, other trial regu-

appellant a Independent is District School Vale #28 organized independent larly school district located County, maintains Dakota, South which district high Vale, grade at South located school maintained a * * * respondent upon many years. That the Dakota, for *** boundary changes presented petitions trans- for minor approximately the assessed valu- ferred a total 30% property appellant from district ation school Newell, to District at the Newell * * * (9) minor nine South Dakota. That the effect changes appellant boundary deprive school is to subject property maintain the taxation of grade to sufficient ** * high appellant district. in the school changes boundary granted follow rea- the minor That pattern by way establishing legal uniform sonable boundary do

between school districts. That transfers actually, property and one block constitute solid place permitted property stand, transfers if would Newell District which is closer more which is accessible the Vale school * * * respond- normal routes and means That of travel. ent Board Education knew either or in exercise reasonable could ascertained series boundary changes operate destroy of minor economy would *4 judg- the District.” From the decreeing boundary changes ment of the circuit the County appealed void, null and Board Education stay proceedings pending to outcome of the court. There was any does record nor disclose that by county assets transferred directed were as board. legislature Chap. 81, statute, in enacted a prescribing procedure effecting 1951, re Laws a for organization act, of school districts. A law school revision repealed Chap. 41, 1955, Laws amplification provisions with and reenacted

statute organization. for re county board created a edu This statute county consisting in each cation seven members powers formation, relative consolidation broad subdivision districts and alterations their boun- designed Generally speaking daries. 1955statute was voluntary reorganizations by qualified effect electors by changes county proposed in districts affected or board. expressly imposed require- statute, however, certain reorganization. 5, ments and for limitations Section Chapter Chapter 8, 41, section, Laws 1955. That (including amended, became SDCL 13-6-4 sections therein reading cited), follows:

“Reorganization by of school districts either electors of education board must requirements §§ meet the forth 13-6-5 set 13-6-9, inclusive.” legislature plenary powers in the exercise of its reorganization

over the establishment of school districts Chap. statute, creating 1967, enacted a the State Elementary Secondary Commission of Education con- sisting provided comprehensive changes of five members and requirements reorganization. Chapter and limitations for general 38 was submitted at the in 1968 election refer- approved endum effective vote when it became was pro- at such election the electorate of the state. The supra, 13-6-4, visions contained in section were amended Chap. supra, part Section read in as follows: “Requirements reorganiza- limitations Reorganization tion. of school elec- tors, education,. board State Board of Education, or the State Commission on Secondary following Education must meet requirements:

(1) All or land area within the State July 1, of South Dakota shall on or before become a of an school offering program an accredited and meet- adopted by the standards the State Board *5 provided, super- Education, of imposed high however, that no qualify school district shall ex- * * * cept July 1, those in existence as of any If area within state has land approved of an become a accordance January of this or Act on of before to boundary July any 1, 1970, effective on if or changes sary, adjustments of land are neces- or area Elementary Commission State on Secondary provide Education for hear- shall any area land in- residents so volved and shall resolution take one of the following courses of action:

(a) approved independent create an school dis-

trict, or (b) any boundary combine,, attach, make adjustment or land area necessary,

be deemed (c) request study additional information and

prior taking any action under course of * * * (b) (a) or above. When State on Commission Secondary Education takes action under subsection (b) Super- above, said Commission shall direct the notify intendent of Instruction within Public ten days by education, mail boards affected, boards and the of- necessary steps affected take im- ficials plement Elementary taken action the State Commission on * * * Secondary Education. any whereby

Notice of actions or resolutions any school is shall be eliminated or created Secretary provided filed with the of State Chapter 266, Session Laws 1965.” pursuant On June the State Commission quoted Secretary the statute above filed with the of State whereby any notice of County actions in Butte appears was “eliminated or created”. from the *6 188 pro- acting under commission, the the

recitals therein that May and 1969,combine 20, on statute visions of the 1967 did the “all District the School attach Newell including “those of Yale land area” the Supreme pending Court concern- the decision of land areas ing boundary changes”, of- board and and the that former respect having perform attach- ficers duties to territory action of notified such had been ment of necessary steps the take commission were instructed to judicial implement the same. court takes notice legislation official record the of the aforementioned Secretary giving notice of actions of the of State office Secondary Edu- Commission on the State present pro- occurring during pendency cation ceedings. Larson, 138 540, Kornmann 81 S.D. State ex rel. v. 1. As that land indicated, record discloses together at- here involved with other lands have been areas that District tached to the respondent Newell been school by words the statute in the eliminated the State Commission. modify purpose legislature in so

The obvious provide adequate statutory procedure an was to speedy procedure by embrace substan method which tially in area” in “all within or land the state operating dependent school districts accredited schools uniformity opportunities thus in more in educational assure system. Chapter public We need not consider supplementing 94, 1967 1970, provisions applicable disposi It statute. tion contains no present appeal. appellate is a well an settled rule that appeal purpose retain an the mere of de should question. ciding 643, 58 Lord, a moot Dickson v. 238 S.D. 21; Bohr, 78, Zimmerman v. 72 S.D. N.W. 30 N.W.2d lapse of a of time Where reason the circumstances changed render which court cannot so effective, be made will can dismissed. he Clarke County, v. Beadle 169 S.D. N.W. affirmed 41 S.D. City Veblen, v. 518; ex Coolsaet rel. 170 N.W. State Kieffer, City v. 802; Plankinton 228 N.W. S.D. 597, 13 N.W.2d 298. 69 S.D. *7 repeatedly establish held court has legislative in character districts is

ment or creation of school vested inhabitants rights Ste its boundaries. the existence of a district Renner, phens 705; Thies v. Jones, 123 N.W. S.D. v. men cited. 106 N.W.2d and cases As 78 S.D. reorganization and unifica tioned the toward trend prior con commenced tion of state during present proceedings. The tinued course entity school district has lost its the schools Yale governed by former districts now board of the pending of the unified are district. The circumstances granted. appeal is such that the relief asked cannot is dismissed. RENTTO, HOMEYER, JJ., BIEGELMEIER concur. Judge (specially concurring). HANSON, I would affirm on the merits. Respondent

LANGDEAU, STATE, v. Petitioner (179 121) (File Opinion August 1970) No. 10748.