Opinion · Molaw Missouri

NELSON v. WATKINSON, 262 S.W.2d 872 (Mo.App.Spr. 1953)

NELSON v. WATKINSON, 262 S.W.2d 872 (Springfield Court of Appeals,Missouri. 1953)

Type: Opinion
Court: Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Date: 1953-12-01
Topic: general

NELSON v. WATKINSON, 262 S.W.2d 872 (Mo.App.Spr. 1953) NELSON ET AL. v. WATKINSON ET AL. No. 7256.Springfield Court of Appeals,Missouri. December 1, 1953.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed NELSON v. WATKINSON, 262 S.W.2d 872 (Mo.App.Spr. 1953). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

NELSON v. WATKINSON,262 S.W.2d 872(Mo.App.Spr. 1953)

NELSON ET AL. v. WATKINSON ET AL.

No. 7256.

Springfield Court of Appeals,

Missouri.

December 1, 1953.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, CHRISTIAN COUNTY, TOM MOORE, J.Page 873

William A. Moon, Sesco V. Tipton, Springfield, G. W. Rogers, Gainesville, for appellants.

Bill Davenport, Ozark, for respondents.

BLAIR, Judge.

[1] On September 3, 1952, the plaintiffs (now respondents) appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Christian County, against them. The Supreme Court, concluding that no constitutional question was involved, made an order on September 23, 1952, transferring the case to this Court. The case has been argued and submitted here.

[2] Plaintiffs, individually, and as members of the interested School Boards, opposed the consolidation of their school districts with the districts proposed to be consolidated.

[3] Acting under a letter from the Division of Public Schools of the State of Missouri, addressed to Mr. A. E. Gott, Secretary of the Christian County Board of Education, under date of July 21, 1952, the Board of Education of said Christian County called an election to enlarge the School District No. 1, called Chadwick School District, for August 12, 1952, at Chadwick, Missouri, to determine whether or not such School District, and other districts, should be so enlarged and consolidated. Plaintiffs bitterly opposed such enlargement, while defendants favored it. Formal notice of the holding of such election was given at the time and place specified in such notice. The opposing forces met in one of the class rooms in the school house at Chadwick, Missouri, on August 12, 1952.

[4] Like most school elections, the election called for August 12, 1952, was more or less informal. There is no provision in the statutes of Missouri for the contest of such an election. State ex rel. Wahl v. Speer, 284 Mo. 45,223 S.W. 655, loc. cit. 660; Section 124.250, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.

[5] It is true that the transcript shows that there were some irregularities about the manner in which such election was held. Our courts have never held as illegal an election where the irregularities complained of were seemingly informal and trivial and no wrongful result or fraudulent deceit shown. The defendants prevailed in the particular election by a vote of 214 to 187. The result could notPage 874possibly have been affected, if all of the irregularities alleged were believed to be true by this Court. Breuninger v. Hill, 277 Mo. 239, 210 S.W. 67; State ex rel. Wahl v. Speer, 284 Mo. 45,223 S.W. 655; Skelton v. Ulen, 217 Mo. 383, 117 S.W. 32.

[6] While there were doubtless some irregularities shown, such as insufficient election booths and a separation of the election booths furnished, and a shortage of printed ballots and stickers. We do not believe such irregularities should be regarded as important. Even if every one of the criticisms alleged in the petition be found under the evidence to be in favor of plaintiffs, we see no reason to interfere. The other irregularities alleged are too trivial even to be noticed.

[7] The judgment is affirmed.

[8] McDOWELL, P. J., concurs.Page 19