Home/South Dakota Supreme Court/Ridgeland School District v. Biesmann

Ridgeland School District v. Biesmann

21 N.W.2d 324, 71 S.D. 82, 1946 S.D. LEXIS 5
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 11, 1946
DocketFile No. 8774.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 N.W.2d 324 (Ridgeland School District v. Biesmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ridgeland School District v. Biesmann, 21 N.W.2d 324, 71 S.D. 82, 1946 S.D. LEXIS 5 (S.D. 1946).

Opinion

BENSON, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by the appellant school district and its officers under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, to determine the validity of a large number of the district’s warrants, which it contends are void because issued for obligations incurred after the constitutional debt limit had been reached. The suit was dismissed as to defendant Corson County and separate judgments were entered in favor of Timber Lake School District No. 2 and George Biesmann. Plaintiff appeals from the Biesmann judgment alone.

Appellant Ridgeland School District No. 14 was formed in 1922 of territory detached from Smee School District. At that time Smee District had a bonded indebtedness of $36,000, part of an issue to build a school, which building was retained by Smee District after the division. Thereafter, the county commissioners levied a tax annually on the property of the two districts for payment of the bonds. On July 1, 1936, $19,500 thereof remained unpaid, $14,000 on July 1, 1937, $8,500 on July 1, 1938, $3,000 July 1, 1939, and on April 24, 1940, the bonds were fully paid.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7446, R. C. 1919, as amended by Chapter 207 Session Laws of 1921, the property and indebtedness, other than bonded, of the old school district was apportioned between the new districts. This division was made on the basis of 80.7% to Smee and 19.3% to Ridgeland.

The parties have stipulated that the full legal tax levy was made by appellant each year. For the period here in *84 volved the assessed valuation, constitutional debt limit, warrants issued and mill levy .of Ridgeland School District, together with the cash on hand and amount of warrants retired during each year, were as follows:

é¡ ,

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

Related

School Dist. No. 74 of Hall Co. v. School Dist. of Gr. Is.
186 N.W.2d 485 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1971)
Farrar v. Britton Independent School District
32 N.W.2d 627 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 N.W.2d 324, 71 S.D. 82, 1946 S.D. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridgeland-school-district-v-biesmann-sd-1946.