People ex rel. Brown v. Union High Sch. Dist. of Solano Cty.
Before: Vanclief
Synopsis
High School District—Petition of Trustees—Corporate Act.—Under the act of the legislature of March 20, 1891, to provide for the establishment of high schools, no corporate act of the board of trustees of the several school districts uniting to form a union high school district is required; but it is sufficient that a majority of the trustees of each of the school districts shall sign the petition to the superintendent of schools for the formation of the union high school district, though not authorized by any corporate act, or resolution of any one of the boards of school trustees of which the signers were members.
Id.—Petition by Resident Electors—Construction #of Statute.—The second section of the act of March 20, 1891, providing that the petition of the trustees shall be accompanied by another petition “for the establishment of such high schools, signed by not less than one hundred.Resident electors of such school district,” does not require that the petition shall be signed by one hundred resident electors in each of the common school districts of which the proposed high school district is composed, but the words “ such school district ” refer to the proposed “ union high school district. ”
Id.—Use of “Such” in Statute.—When the word “such,” used in a statute, precedes a noun of singular number, it properly relates to the same noun in the same number, as antecedently expressed and qualified, and especially to the antecedent qualification of that noun, and denotes that the noun which it precedes is to be understood as antecedently qualified.
Id.—Election for High School—Majority of Votes Cast—Construction of Statute.—The provisions of the statute that the county school superintendent shall call an election in each school district, and that the officers of such elections shall report the result to him, and that if a majority of such votes be cast in favor of a high school, the superintendent must call a meeting of the boards of school trustees, and proceed to determine the question of locating the high school, do not require that there shall be a majority of the votes cast in each district in favor of the high school, but the statute is properly construed to mean a majority of all the votes cast in the proposed high school district.
Id.—Neglect to Hold Election in One District.—The election having been regularly called, and all the persons interested having been duly notified of the time and places at which they would have the privilege of voting, the neglect to hold an election in one of the school districts does not vitiate the election.
Id.—Appointment of Officers of Election—Presumption.—If the requisite number of inspectors, judges, and clerks of election was not appointed, the presumption is, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, that the deficiency was supplied by the electors present at the time of opening the polls.
Vanclief, C.— Information in the nature of quo warranto, filed by the attorney general in the superior court of Solano county, charging that the defendant wrongfully claims and exercises the franchises of a duly organized union high school district, under an act of the legislature passed March 20, 1891, entitled, “An act to provide for the establishment of high schools in the state of California.” (Stats. 1891, p. 182.)
A demurrer to the information on the ground that it does not state sufficient facts was sustained by the court. The plaintiff declining to amend, judgment was rendered for defendant, from which plaintiff brings this appeal.
[657]The first section of the act provides that two or more adjoining school districts may “unite and form a union high school district, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a high school therein.”
The second section enacts that “When .... a'majority of the trustees of two or more adjoining school districts shall unite in a petition to the county superintendent, accompanied by a petition for the establishment of such high schools, signed by not less than one hundred resident electors of such .... school districts, it shall be the duty of the county school superintendent, within twenty days, to call an election, and appoint the officers to conduct the same, for the determination of such question.....Said election shall be conducted in the manner prescribed by law for conducting school elections.”
Section third provides: “If a majority of such votes cast be in favor of high school, it shall be the duty of the county superintendent to call a meeting of the .... boards of school trustees uniting, within fifteen days, ten days’ notice of which shall be given to each member of each board, in writing, by the county superintendent. At such meeting the question of locating the high school shall be determined.”
The defendant district is composed of eight adjoining school districts of Solano county.
It is contended by appellant that the information shows noncompliance with some of the essential requirements of the act expressed in the above extracts therefrom, by reason whereof the union district was never organized as a corporation, and therefore that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer.
1. While it is admitted that a majority of the trustees of each of the eight school districts signed the petition to the superintendent of schools for the formation of the union high school district, it appears that such signing was not authorized by any corporate act or resolution of any one of the boards of school trustees of which the signers were members; and it is claimed that this
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)