BERRYMAN v. HOWELL

BERRYMAN v. HOWELL
1944 OK 232
149 P.2d 505
194 Okla. 259
Case Number: 31361
Decided: 06/06/1944
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BERRYMAN et al.
v.
HOWELL et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. CERTIORARI--Scope of inquiry limited to question whether inferior tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.
A writ of certiorari brings up for review the sole question of whether the inferior tribunal kept within or exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law. The writ cannot be used to correct errors of law or fact committed by an inferior tribunal within the limits of its jurisdiction.
2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS--Annexation of territory-Statute did not require that signers of petition be property owners of territory, only that they be "qualified electors."
70 O. S. 1941 § 890.1 did not require that those signing a petition to detach territory from one school district and to annex it to another school district be property owners or taxpaying electors of the territory sought to be annexed. It required only that they be "qualified electors" of the territory sought to be annexed, and the petition is sufficient if it be signed by a majority of such qualified electors.
3. SAME--Signatures to petition could not be withdrawn after posting statutory notice.
No person signing a petition to annex territory to a school district could withdraw his name from such petition after the notice was posted as provided in 70 0. S. 1941 § 890.2.
4. SAME--CERTIORARI--Conclusiveness of trial court's finding as to whether signatures to petition were induced by coercion or fraud.
There being a conflict in the evidence before the district court as to whether those signing a petition for annexation of a portion of a school district to an adjacent school district were induced to sign the same as a result of coercion, misrepresentation or fraud, the finding of the district court on such issue, which is supported by the evidence, will not be disturbed by this court under a writ of certiorari.

Original action in Supreme Court by J. B. Berryman et al. to review judgment of the District Court of Seminole County, Bob Howell, Judge, on writ of certiorari. Judgment for respondents.

Nolen & Ross, of Okemah, for petitioners.
J. M. Huser and R. J. Roberts, both of Wewoka, for respondents.

HURST, J.

¶1 On October 12, 1942, the county superintendent of Seminole county made an order transferring a portion of the territory of school district No. 28 of Okfuskee county to consolidated school district No. 2 of Seminole county. On appeal, the order was affirmed by the district court of Seminole county. We granted a writ of certiorari to review the proceedings to determine whether the county superintendent and the district court exceeded their jurisdiction. The proceedings are governed by 70 O.S. 1941 § §890.1-890.8, known as Senate Bill No. 81 of the 18th Legislature. The bill was repealed by Senate Bill No. 5 of the 19th Legislature, S. L. 1943, pages 208-210.

¶2 The petitioners do not separate their specifications of error or contentions as required by rule 15 (177 Okla. vii), but as we understand their brief they contend that the judgment of the district court should be reversed, (a) because none of those signing the petition for change of boundary of the two districts were property owners in school district No. 28, (b) because the petition was not signed by the required number of persons, (c) because some of those signing the petition withdrew their names, leaving an insufficient number of signers, and (d) because the signatures of those signing the petition were obtained by coercion, misrepresentation, and fraud.

¶3 Before disposing of these contentions it may be well to point out that we are committed to the rule that a writ of certiorari brings up for review the sole question of whether the inferior tribunal kept within or exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it, and it cannot be used to correct errors of law or fact committed by an inferior tribunal within the limits of its jurisdiction. McCoy v. Hall, 191 Okla. 311, 131 P.2d 60.

¶4 a. The statute, 70 O.S. 1941 § 890.1, provides that the petition for annexation shall be "signed by a majority of the qualified electors of each district, or part of district, seeking to be annexed and by a majority of the members of the school district board of the district to which said territory is sought to be annexed." This statute does not require, as urged by petitioners, that those signing the petition be taxpaying electors or property owners.

¶5 b. The testimony of witnesses taken before the district court is in the record. It discloses that there were twelve qualified electors residing in the territory sought to be annexed. Ten persons purporting to be electors residing in said territory signed the petition. It appears that two of those signing did not reside in said territory. With them eliminated, more than a majority of the qualified electors residing in the territory were signers.

¶6 c. It appears that some of those signing the petition for annexation also signed a protest or objection to the annexation, but this was done after the notice had been posted as provided by 70 O.S. 1941 § 890.2. In said section it is provided that "no person who signed said petition shall withdraw his name therefrom after said notices have been posted." Assuming, without deciding, that the signing of the protest had the effect of withdrawing the names from the petition, it came too late to be effective.

¶7 d. The record discloses that the superintendent and a member of the board of consolidated school district No. 2 circulated the petition for annexation. The evidence is conflicting as to what was said to induce the signing of the petition and as to whether coercion, misrepresentation, or fraud was practiced in securing the signatures to the petition. The finding of the district court is supported by the evidence. The district court acted within its jurisdiction in finding this issue against the protestants, the petitioners here.

¶8 In the objections and protest filed with the county superintendent it was urged that Senate Bill No. 81, above, was unconstitutional without specifying the reasons, but no such contention is made here. In School District No. 37 v. Latimer, 190 Okla. 620, 126 P.2d 280, we sustained the statute as against an attack on certain constitutional grounds.

¶9 Judgment affirmed.

¶10 CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and BAYLESS, DAVISON, and ARNOLD JJ., concur.