342 HUNT V. QUARLES. [174 HUNT V. QUARLES. Opinion delivered June 6, 1927. JUDGMENT—RES • JuDICATA.—Where the judgment of the Supreme Court determined an issue between the parties, but left open the settlement of certain .items of account between them, it was held res juddeata on a re-trial as to the issue litigated and decided. Appeal from Phillips Chancery Court; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor; affirmed. *Brewer & Cracraft, for • appellant. W. G. Dinning, for appellee. • MCHANEY, J. This suit is . an aftermath of the case of Quarles v. Little Cypress Drainage District, 168 Ark. 368. BY it appellant seeks to recover $40,000 damages for the alleged-breach by appellee of the contract set out in the original opinion in this case, whereby he was prevented from removing 292,273 cubic yards of earth for the district on which he claims he would have made a
ARK.] MCCRORY SPEC. SCHOOL DIST. V. CURTIS. 343 profit in said amount. Appellee pleaded the former-decision of this court as res judicata, which the court sustained, and gave judgment for appellee. The court was right.in so doing, as the exact question was decided in the former appeal: In the statement of the case this court stated that "appellant, Hunt, also instituted a separate action against the district and 1 against Quarles to recover the amount of earned compensation under his contract and for damages for breach of the contract." And in that case this court gave judgment here for this appellant against the district in the sum - of $4,456.87 with 'interest, and a judgment for Quarles against the district. This court further said: "It is conceded by both Quarles and Hunt that there are items of account to be settled between them in the litigation, and that, on the remand of the cause, those matters will be either settled or litigated," but this 'did not authorize a retrial of the issue litigated and deci . ded in the former appeal, which appellant seeks to do by this action. We find .no error in the record, and the decree is accordingly affirmed. MCORORY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CURTIS. Opinion delivered June 13, 1927. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS—ANNEXATIO N OF TERRITORY.—The county board of education has no jurisdiction to annex territory within a special rural school district created.by Sp. Act of Feb-ruary 18, 1920, to another special school district. 2. CERTIORARI—VOID ORDER. — An order of the county board of education annexing territory within a 'special rural school district created by the Legislature to another special school district may be quashed by certiorari, , since the order was void, though the parties could have appealeil from the order. Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court, Northern District; W. D. Davenport, Judge; affirmed.
344 MCCRORY SPEC. SCHOOL DIST. V. CURTIS. [174 • . STATEMENT BY' THE COURT. R. H. Curtis and others filed a petition in the circuit court against the members of the , board of education of Woodruff County, Arkansas, the' directors of McCrory Special School District and•the directors of Rural Special School District No. 22 of Woodruff County, to .quash an order of said board of education annexing the territory of Rural Special School District No. 22 of Woodruff County to McCrory Special School District. The order of the county board of education recites that the territory of Special School District No. 22 of Wbodruff County -is adjacent to McCrory SPecial School Di strict; that majority of the qualified electors of said ; Special School District No. 22 of*Woodruff Countysigned the petition for annexation ; that said petition' is also signed by the board of directors of said McCrory 'Special School District, and that it has, in all other respects, complied with the requirements of § 8949 of • Crawford & Moses' Digest and other sections of the statute relating to . the matter. The order annexes all of the terrifory Of said Rural . Special School District No. 22 ta said McCrory Special School District and adjudges that all property of said Special School District No. 22 be vested In said McCrory Special School District and that all moneys of said Special School District No. 22 be transferred to said McCrory Special School District. The defendants filed a demurrer to the petition, on the ground that the circuit court had no jurisdiction. The circuit court overruled the demurrer, and the defendants refused to plead further. Whereupon the- circuit court quashed the order of th . e cOutity board 'of education aimeXing said .Rural- Special School District No. .22 to said McCrory . S p ecial. School District, • .The case is here .on appeal. Jonas . F.--DOon, for appellant.' E. M. NriLee and W. J Dungain, for aPPellee. HART, C. J., (after stating the facts). The judgment of the Circuit court was Correct. The . record shows that Rural Special School District No. 22 of Woodruff
•RK.] MCCRORY SPEC. SCHOOL DIST. V. CURTIS. 345 County,. Arkansas, was created by special act • 'of the Legislature of 1920, which was apProved February . 18, 1920.. 'Said district is a rural special school district,'.and this . court has eXpressly held that, when the whole of our statutes relating to our system of . organizing • territory into school districts is . considered, it is apparent that the Legislature . did not intend that . any part of the territory Once organized into a rural special school district' could thereafter be taken and organized into another district of like ;kind. CrDw v. Special School DiStrict No'. 2, 102 Ark. 401, 144 S. W. 226 ;:and Helvering v. McDougal, 119 Ark. 162, 177 S. W. 937. Again, this court has 'said tha ' t the Section§ of the Digest authorizing the county board of education to Change the boundary lines of s.chool districts did not authorize such board to ch6nge the boundary lines of a district e,reated by special act of the Legislature. School Distriet No. 25 v. Pgatt Special School District, 172 Ark., 602, 289 S. W. 778; Park v. Rural Special School Dist. No. 26, 173 'Ark. 514, 892, 292 S. W. '697. In a still later Case the court said that, when the Legislature itself creates a special school district, neither .the county board of education nor any other governmental agency has the . power to change the boundaries thereof, without express authority from the 'Legislature so to do. Carter Special School District"v. Hollis' Special School District, 173 Ark. 731, 293 S. W. 722. .11ewe, it may be said that the county board of education has no jurisdiction to annex territory already comprised in a special rural school district created by the Legislature. to another special school district. Again, .it is insisted that, the judgment of * the circuit court should . be reversed because certiorari was not the proper remedy. In Making this contention- counsel rely • upon an act of the . Legislature of 1925 providing that any party to the record in' a proceeding brought'before the county board of education; 'Should he' feel 'aggrieved by any final order of suCh hoard; may prosecute . an ;appeal from such final order. Acts 1925, page 546. •
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.