Mills v. Lynch

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Mills v. Lynch

1926 OK 594, 247 P. 981, 121 Okla. 101, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 64

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 29, 1926

Docket17288

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1926 OK 594 (Mills v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mills v. Lynch, 1926 OK 594, 247 P. 981, 121 Okla. 101, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 64 (Okla. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

NICHOLSON, C. J.

This cause is here by certiorari to review the action of the county superintendent of pnblic instruction of Kingfisher county, in ordering the annexation of school district No. 49 to consolidated school district No. 2, of said county.

At the time t.iiis proceeding was had, there were 04 legal voters residing in school district No. 49. On February 11, 1920, a petition bearing the names of 35 voters of said district was presented to the county superintendent, asking that said district be *102 consolidated with consolidated school district No. 2. Afterwards, and before said petition was acted upon by the county superintendent, lour of the persons signing said petition removed from said district, and 9 others who had signed such petitions withdrew, in writing, their names therefrom. On March 9, 1926, the county superintendent, acting upon the petition as filed, made the order of consolidation here complained of.

By the provisions of section 10462, Comp. Stat. 1921, all or a part of any school district adjacent to a consolidated school district shall be attached to and become a part of such consolidated district upon petition to the county superintendent signed by a ma-' jority of the legal voters of such territory desiring to be attached and by the board of directors of such consolidated district. By these provisions the county superintendent was authorized' to' make the order of consolidation only upon a petirion signed by a majority of the legal voters of the district. These voters withdrawing their names had a right to do so at any time before the petition was acted upon by the county superintendent, and the names so withdrawn could not be counted as signers of the petition. School District No. 24, Custer County, v. Renick, County Superintendent, 83 Okla. 158, 201 Pac. 241. The petition, when acted upon, did not contain a majority of the legal voters of the district, and the county superintendent was without authority to order the consolidation.

The cause is reversed, with directions to dismiss the petition.

All the Justices concur, except PHELPS, J., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NICHOLSON, C. J.

This cause is here by certiorari to review the action of the county superintendent of pnblic instruction of Kingfisher county, in ordering the annexation of school district No. 49 to consolidated school district No. 2, of said county.

At the time t.iiis proceeding was had, there were 04 legal voters residing in school district No. 49. On February 11, 1920, a petition bearing the names of 35 voters of said district was presented to the county superintendent, asking that said district be *102 consolidated with consolidated school district No. 2. Afterwards, and before said petition was acted upon by the county superintendent, lour of the persons signing said petition removed from said district, and 9 others who had signed such petitions withdrew, in writing, their names therefrom. On March 9, 1926, the county superintendent, acting upon the petition as filed, made the order of consolidation here complained of.

By the provisions of section 10462, Comp. Stat. 1921, all or a part of any school district adjacent to a consolidated school district shall be attached to and become a part of such consolidated district upon petition to the county superintendent signed by a ma-' jority of the legal voters of such territory desiring to be attached and by the board of directors of such consolidated district. By these provisions the county superintendent was authorized' to' make the order of consolidation only upon a petirion signed by a majority of the legal voters of the district. These voters withdrawing their names had a right to do so at any time before the petition was acted upon by the county superintendent, and the names so withdrawn could not be counted as signers of the petition. School District No. 24, Custer County, v. Renick, County Superintendent, 83 Okla. 158, 201 Pac. 241. The petition, when acted upon, did not contain a majority of the legal voters of the district, and the county superintendent was without authority to order the consolidation.

The cause is reversed, with directions to dismiss the petition.

All the Justices concur, except PHELPS, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK 594, 247 P. 981, 121 Okla. 101, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-lynch-okla-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack