{ "id": 1586528, "name": "WHITE et al. (ANTLE, Intervener) v. CURRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.", "name_abbreviation": "White v. Curry County Board of Education", "decision_date": "1932-03-24", "docket_number": "No. 3722", "first_page": "177", "last_page": "181", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "36 N.M. 177" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "10 P.2d 590" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "86 Or. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or.", "case_ids": [ 2362312 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or/86/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 P. 2", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 Kan. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 73996 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/102/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 N. M. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557920 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/35/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "281 P. 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 N. M. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1556054 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/34/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 N. M. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557969 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "118" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/35/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 P. 743", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 N. M. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8842104 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/30/0454-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 490, "char_count": 7922, "ocr_confidence": 0.496, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.499467066454796e-07, "percentile": 0.8093684226377676 }, "sha256": "a35ca169210e219bfe73a25b0817114722406f0ede1127690319db03dac93dfc", "simhash": "1:f3edd604eb7b804a", "word_count": 1345 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:24:15.491223+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BICKLEY, C. J., and PARKER, SADLER, and HUDSPETH, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "WHITE et al. (ANTLE, Intervener) v. CURRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WATSON, J.\nE. E. White et al., as taxpayers, sued the board -of county commissioners of Curry county and the Curry county board of education and others, to enjoin the issuance of $40,000 of bonds which had been voted for the purpose of erecting a sehoolhouse in school district No. 61. C. S. Antle sought to intervene. From an order denying the intervention and a judgment dismissing the complaint, separate appeals have been taken and are here presented as one cause.\nThe trial court excluded evidence offered by plaintiffs to prove allegations that the proposition in the petition as circulated and signed was to issue $42,000 of bonds to build and furnish a schoolhouse, and that before presentation to the board the words \u201cand furnish\u201d had been stricken; and that the proposition in the resolution of the board 'as originally passed and entered was to issue $42,000 of bonds, but that by an alteration of the record, made by the clerk, on advice of the district attorney, and without any further action of the board, the amount of bonds was changed to $40,000.\nWe think the ruling must be sustained. The School Code under which these proceedings were attempted, provides, in substance, that attacks upon \u201cthe validity of the petition asking for the election or the resolution approving said petition, or both, * * * \u201d may be made at \u201cany time prior to five days preceding the day set for an election, but not afterwards. * * * \u201d 1929 Comp. \u00a7 120-711.\nWe consider this section a statute of limitations. The bond sections of the School Code (Comp. St. 1929, \u00a7 120-701 et seq.) disclose a purpose to have the validity of the proceedings settled before bonds shall be issued, and disclose also the necessity of prompt action at every stage to meet the time limits set. Eisherdick v. San Juan County Board of Education, 30 N. M. 454, 236 P. 743. This section (120-711) gives taxpayers not less than twenty-five days after the adoption of the resolution, and not less than ten days after its publication, within which to launch their attack. While this section is couched in different language than section 120-712, limiting suits after the election, we think the two sections 'are of the same nature and have like effect. The latter section is quite similar to 1929 Comp. St. \u00a7 90-1214, which we recently held to be a .statute of limitations, remarking that: \u201cShort periods of limitations on the right to attack proceedings such as these are present almost invariably in legislation of this kind.\u201d Oliver v. Board of Trustees, 35 N. M. 477, 1 P.(2d) 116, 118.\nThe present attack, if launched in time, would perhaps have been fatal. Dickinson v. Board of Commissioners, 34 N. M. 337, 281 P. 33. But we see no reason for holding that the Legislature could not limit the action as it has. It was within its power to have omitted the petition entirely. Williams v. Van Pelt, 35 N. M. 286, 295 P. 418. See, also, Riverside Park Association v. City of Hutchinson, 102 Kan. 488, 171 P. 2. Elliott v. Tillamook County, 86 Or. 427, 168 P. 77, cited by appellants, we think not in point.\nWe are not impressed with the distinction which appellants seek to make between a petition or a resolution merely insufficient or invalid, and one so insufficient as to be no petition or no resolution at all. There were in this case both a petition and a resolution, and appellants seek to attack them as invalid.\nAppellants also alleged, and the trial court refused to permit them to prove, a failure to comply with 1929 Comp. St. \u00a7\u00a7 33-3801, 33-3802, which provide, in substance, that any. school district contemplating the issuance of bonds shall, before initiating any proceedings, notify the state tax commission, whose duty it shall be to furnish the district authorities all necessary information as to valuation, present indebtedness, 'and limitations of tax rates and debt contracting power.\nWe do not find in these provisions anything essential to the validity of the proceedings, or that an entire failure to comply with them would in itself be cause to enjoin the bond issue.\nAppellants also alleged, and the trial court refused to permit them to prove, a failure to comply with Laws 1931, c. 119, \u00a7 1 (o). This section amended 1929, Comp. St. \u00a7 120J.05, and, in substance, requires that it shall be the duty of the state board of education to approve or disapprove any proposed .bond issue, and that no such issue shall be Valid without such approval in writing, and that such written approval shall be made a part of the transcript of the proceedings.\nIt would no doubt be wise to obtain such approval before going to the expense of holding an election. But the statute does not so require. We know of.no reason why, if the approval has not yet been obtained, it may not still be obtained and included in the transcript. Hence, at the time of suit, the failure presented no legal reason for enjoining the proposed issue.\nThe complaint alleges the invalidity of certain proceedings by which it was attempted and intended to consolidate two school districts in Quay county with district 61 of Curry county. Could this have been shown, its consequences would have been serious. Without including the Quay county territory, the assessed valuation would not have been sufficient to support the issue, and some 40 votes at the election would have been illegal. The trial court refused to permit this tendered proof on the ground that it constituted a collateral attack upon the corporate existence of a de facto municipal corporation.\nWe are spared the necessity of considering whether this assigned reason for the ruling is sound. Laws 1931. c. 45. validates \u201call school districts now formed which shall have exercised undisputed, the prerogatives, and shall have enjoyed the privileges of a legally formed district for a period of six months next preceding the passing and approval of this Act.\u201d\nAppellants urge that this act does not apply to consolidated school districts. It applies in terms to \u201call school districts.\u201d We see no reason for limiting it by construction so as to exclude districts formed by the consolidation method.\nAppellants also urge that \u201call school districts now formed\u201d does not mean \u201cdistricts formed contrary to law,\u201d and which \u201cnever had any lawful right to existence, as it claimed to exist, and as it held itself out to the public.\u201d The purpose of Validating, statutes is to give legality to what would otherwise be illegal. ' To give legality to what was already legal would be farcical. It plainly appears from the record that consolidated district 61 has been in de facto existence for several years. Hence the invalidating statute gave it a de jure status.\nWe find nothing in the statute to sustain appellant\u2019s contention that a separate election should have been held in the Quay county part of the district, or that \u201cQuay County\u201d should have been printed on the ballot. On the contrary, but one election is contemplated. It is to be held \u201cin said district.\u201d . 1929 Comp. St. \u00a7 120-703. And, \u201cThe county which had the largest average daily attendance within the territory consolidated shall govern said consolidated districts as though it were wholly within its own territory. * * *\u201d 1929 Comp. St. \u00a7 120-808.\nIt is claimed that the undisputed evidence shows an assessed valuation insufficient to support the proposed bonds. We do not so understand the record.\nWe find nothing in the petition of intervention requiring separate treatment.\nThe order and the judgment should be affirmed, and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.\nBICKLEY, C. J., and PARKER, SADLER, and HUDSPETH, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WATSON, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hockenhull & Mayes, of Clovis, for appellants.", "Carl A. Hatch, Perkins L. Patton, and Everett M. Grantham, all of Clovis, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "10 P.(2d) 590\nWHITE et al. (ANTLE, Intervener) v. CURRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.\nNo. 3722.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMarch 24, 1932.\nRehearing Denied May 2, 1932.\nHockenhull & Mayes, of Clovis, for appellants.\nCarl A. Hatch, Perkins L. Patton, and Everett M. Grantham, all of Clovis, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0177-01", "first_page_order": 205, "last_page_order": 209 }