69 quired by law,68 and at which certain designated voters have the privilege of casting their ballots. A strict compliance with these provisions is usually required, though, in respect to those deemed directory, a substantial compliance only is necessary. A prescribed affirmative vote may be also required.70 § 1074. Alteration of school districts. It is necessary in order to meet changing conditions that authority exist for the alteration of school districts. An alteration of boundaries may be either made through a division of an already existing district 1 or by its consolidation with others or the annexation of other districts.72 A change of boundaries is made in 71 Conn. 166, 46 Atl. 822; Irving v. Gregory, 86 Ga. 605, 13 S. E. 120; Butterfield v. Inhabitants of School Dist. No. 6, 61 Me. 583; Sawyer v. Williams, 25 Vt. 311. 68 Hesper Dist. Tp. v. Independent Dist. of Burr Oak, 34 Iowa, 306; District Tp. of Lincoln v. Independent Dist. of Germania, 112 Iowa, 321, 83 N. W. 1068. It is sufficient if the provision of the statutes in respect to the manner of election is substantially complied with. In re Clearfield Independent School Dist., 79 Pa. 419. 69 Slate v. City of Blue Ridge, 113 Ga. 646, 38 S. E. 977. 70 Ft. Dodge City School Dist. v. Wahkausa Dist. Tp., 17 Iowa, 85; State v. Board of Education of Appleton City, 64 Mo. 53; Pierce v. Carpenter, 10 Vt. 480; Literary Fund v. Dalby, 4 Grat. (Va.) 528. 71 Sixteenth School Dist. v. Eighteenth School Dist., 54 Conn. 50; Trustees of Schools v. School Directors, 190 Ill. 390, 60 N. E. 531; Richards v. Daggett, 4 Mass. 534; Mendell v. Inhabitants of Marion, 82 Mass. (16 Gray) 353. Towns cannot be redistricted into school districts oftener than once in ten years, under Mass. Statutes. State v. Hill, 152 Mo. 234, 53 S. W. 1062. A district cannot be so divided as to leave it with a population of less than twenty children of school age. Pumphrey v. Brown, 77 Va. 569. The legislature can arbitrarily divide school districts. 72 Vernon School Dist. v. Board of Education of Los Angeles, 125 Cal. 593, 58 Pac. 175; People v. Union High School Dist., 101 Cal. 655; In re Senate Bill No. 9, 26 Colo. 136, 56 Pac. 173. Under Const. art. 5, 25, certain legislation relative to consolidation of school districts held unconstitutional. Independent Dist. of Lynnville v. District Tp. of Lynn Grove, 82 Iowa, 169, 47 N. W. 1030; Albin v. West Branch Independent Dist., 58 Iowa, 77; Newlon v. Independent Dist. of Montrose, 109 Iowa, 169, 80 N. W. 316. Construing Iowa Code 1873, § 1797, providing that where by reason of natural obstacles a portion of a school district cannot with reasonable facility enjoy school advantages in their own school district, they may be annexed to an adjoining district. Call v. Chadbourne, 46 Me. 206; 74 some instances by action of the county commissioners,73 in others. by the county superintendent or school commissioner or inspectors, and in still other cases through the action of some judicial or quasi judicial body." The proceedings in respect to the alteration are governed entirely by local statutes. They usually provide for the determination of the question by a vote of the districts or territory affected 76 upon petition or other proceedings," or at a gen School Dist. of Macon v. Goodding, 120 Mo. 67, 24 S. W. 1034. A school district composed of a certain city is not enlarged by the mere extension of the city limits. State v. Heath, 56 Mo. 231; State v. Heiser, 60 Mo. 540; State v. Miller, 65 Mo. 50; Henry v. Dulle, 74 Mo. 443; School Dist. of Agency v. Wallace, 75 Mo. App. 317; Perkins v. Langmaid, 34 N. H. 315; Converse v. Porter, 45 N. H. 385; Child v. Colburn, 54 N. H. 71; Dooley v. Meese, 31 Neb. 424. Kaighn v. Browning, 27 N. J. Law (3 Dutch.) 527. An incorporated school district under § 41, school law, has no right to alter or abolish another school district without notice to it and its consent. School Dist. No. 74 v. Long, 2 Okl. 460, 37 Pac. 601; Redfield School Dist. No. 12 v. Redfield Independent School Dist. No. 20, 14 S. D. 229, 85 N. W. 180; State v. Watson (Tenn. Ch. App.) 39 S. W. 536; Rodemer v. Mitchell, 90 Tenn. 65; State v. Graham, 60 Wis. 395. The statute relative to the alteration of boundaries of school district must be strictly followed. But see District Tp. of Center v. Independent Dist. of Lansing, 82 Iowa, 10, 47 N. W. 1033. 73 State v. Independent School Dist., 42 Minn. 357, 44 N. W. 120; State v. Compton, 28 Neb. 485, 44 N. W. 660; Baldwin v. Nickerson, 3 Wyo. 208, 19 Pac. 439. 74 Board of Education v. Trustees of Schools, 74 Ill. App. 401; Brody v. Penn, Tp. Board, 32 Mich. 272; State v. Clary, 25 Neb. 403, 41 N. W. 256; Hendreschke v. Harvard' High School Dist., 35 Neb. 400, 53 N. W. 204; School Dist. No. 10 of Polk County v. Coleman, 39 Neb. 391, 58 N. W. 146; Reeves v. Barrett, 31 N. J. Law, 31; People v. Hooper, 13 Hun (N. Y.) 639; Bull V. School Committee of Woonsocket, 11 R. I. 244. See, also, cases cited under last note of § 1077. 75 In re Heidler, 122 Pa. 653, 16 Atl. 97; Porter v. State, 78 Tex. 591, 14 S. W. 794; Stephens v. Buie, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 491, 57 S. W. 312; Trustees of Lytle School Dist. v. Haas, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 433, 59 S. W. 830. But see Rodemer v. Mitchell, 90 Tenn. 65, 15 S. W. 1067. 76 State v. Grimshaw (Mo.) 1 S. W. 363; State v. Burford, 82 Mo. App. 343. 77 Hudspeth v. Wallis, 54 Ark. 134, 15 S. W. 184; School Dist. No. 11 v. School Dist. No. 20, 63 Ark. 543, 39 S. W. 850. Defining "elector and resident" under Sand. & H. Dig., § 7064. People v. Union High School Dist., 101 Cal. 655, 36 Pac. 119; Kramm v. Bogue, 127 Cal. 122, 59 Pac. 394; Carrico v. People, 123 Ill. 198, 14 N. E. 66; Scott v. Trustees of Schools, 71 Ill. App. 95; School Trustees v. People, 71 Ill. App. 559; People v. Allen, 155 Ill. 402, 40 N. eral or special election or meeting.78 Provision is also made for the transfer of records and property 79 including a proportionate part of school taxes, by the districts affected to that one legally entitled to hold the possession and title.80 The law may also pro E. 350, following Parr v. Miller, 146 Ill. 596; Trustees of Schools of Tp. No. 9 v. People, 161 Ill. 146, 43 N. E. 696; People v. Simpson, 168 Ill. 127, 48 N. E. 302; Mullins v. Andrews, 20 Ky. L. R. 20, 45 S. W. 231; Webber v. Stover, 62 Me. 512; Burnett v. Board of School Inspectors, 97 Mich. 103, 56 N. W. 234; State v. Burford, 82 Mo. App. 343; State v. Compton, 28 Neb. 485, 44 N. W. 660. The petition must b in writing. State v. Wright, 17 Ohio, 32; Board of Education of Pond Creek v. Boyer, 5 Okl. 225, 47 Pac. 1090; School Dist. v. Palmer, 41 Or. 485, 69 Pac. 453; School Dist. No. 74 v. Lincoln County Com'rs, 9 S. D. 291, 68 N. W. 746. 78 Beavers v. State, 60 Ark. 124, 29 S. W. 144; Gravel Hill School Dist. v. Old Farm School Dist. 55 Conn. 244, 10 Atl. 689; Trustees of Schools of Tp. 9 v. People, 161 Ill. 146, 43 N. E. 696; People v. Keechler, 194 Ill. 235, 62 N. E. 525; Grindle v. School Dist. No. 1, 64 Me. 44; Parker v. Titcomb, 82 Me. 180, 19 Atl. 162; Alden v. Rounseville, 48 Mass. (7 Metc.) 218; Gentle v. Board of School Inspectors, 73 Mich. 40, 40 N. W. 928; Shattock v. Phillips, 78 Mo. 80; Jones v. Camp, 34 Vt. 384; Greenbanks V. Boutwell, 43 Vt. 207; Bill v. Dow, 56 Vt. 562. 79 People v. Keechler, 194 Ill. 235, 62 N. E. 525; Independent School Dist. of Oakville v. Independent School Dist. of Asbury, 43 Iowa, 444. The board of directors in making a division of the assets upon the division of a township school district, act in a judicial capacity; their jurisdiction is exclusive and their judgment cannot be set aside in a collateral proceeding. School Dist. No. 49 v. School Dist. No. 70, 20 Kan. 76; Robinet v. School Dist. No. 83, 63 Kan. 1, 64 Pac. 970. The county superintend ent in apportioning the value of school property justly due a new district, formed out of the territory taken from another district, acts in a judicial or quasi judicial capacity. Deckerville High School v. School Dist. No. 3, 131 Mich. 272, 90 N. W. 1064; Gregg v. French, 67 Minn. 402, 69 N. W. 1102; People v. Hodge, 4 Neb. 265; Board of Education v. Board of Education, 46 Ohio St. 595; In re Abbington School Dist., 84 Pa. 179; Lower Allen School Dist. v. Shiremanstown School Dist., 91 Pa. 182; Porter v. State, 78 Tex. 591, 14 S. W. 794; State v. Norwood, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 24, 57 S. W. 875; Trustees of Lytle School Dist. v. Haas, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 433, 59 S. W. 830; Webb County v. School Trustees of Laredo, 95 Tex. 131, 65 S. W. 878; Town of Barre v. School Dist. No. 13, 67 Vt. 108, 30 Atl. 807; State v. Joint School Dist. No. 1, 109 Wis. 313, 85 N. W. 349. But see School Dist. No. 1 v. School Dist. No. 4, 94 Mo. 612, 7 S. W. 285; State v. School Dist. No. 15, 90 Mo. 395. 80 McGurn v. Board of Education, 133 Ill. 122, 24 N. E. 529; Whitmore v. Hogan, 22 Me. 564; School Dist. No. 6 v. Tapley, 83 Mass. (1 Allen) 81 vide for a proportionate assumption of existing indebtedness. $1 An independent school district is usually regarded as one of a higher grade or class than a common school district and statutes may provide for a change in character with or without a change in territorial boundaries.82 Notice of meetings or elections at which the question is to be determined or any change either in character or boundaries must be given in the manner provided by law 83 and the required vote cast in favor of the proposition sub 49; Perrizo v. Kesler, 93 Mich. 280, 53 N. W. 391; School Dist. No. 5-52 v. Neal, 74 Mo. App. 553; School Dist. No. 16 v. Concord, 64 N. H. 235, 9 Atl. 630; Town School Dist. of Barre v. Cook, 68 Vt. 88, 34 Atl. 33; Dodge v. South Royalton Graded School Dist., 67 Vt. 334. See, also, Elder v. Ter., 3 Wash. T. 438, 19 Pac. 29. 81 Fairfield v. Rural Independent School Dist., 111 Fed. 453; Rogers v. People, 68 Ill. 154; Trustees of Schools v. School Directors, 190 Ill. 390, 60 N. E. 531; Axbury Independent School Dist. v. Dubuque County Dist. Ct., 48 Iowa, 182; Independent School Dist. of Lowell v. Independent School Dist. of Duser, 45 Iowa, 391. An apportionment of the assets and liabilities on the division of a district is final and conclusive until set aside by proper proceedings and cannot be attacked collaterally. Brewer v. Palmer, 13 Mich. 104; Halbert v. School Dists. Nos. 2, 3 and 5, 36 Mich. 421; Gregg v. French, 67 Minn. 402; Thompson v. Abbott, 61 Mo. 176; Clark v. Nichols, 52 N. H. 298; School Dist. No. 3 v. Greenfield, 64 N. H. 84, 6 Atl. 484; Sharp v. Froehlich (N. J. Law) 37 Atl. 1024; Coler v. Coppin, 10 N. D. 86, 85 N. W. 988; Butler School Dist. v. Gordon School Dist., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 663; Dyer v. School Dist. No. 1, 61 Vt. 96, 17 Atl. 788; Blaisdell v. School Dist. No. 2, 72 Vt. 63, 47 Atl. 173; Cunningham v. Orange, 74 Vt. 115, 52 Atl. 269; School Dist. No. 2 v. School Dist. No. 1, 3 Wis. 333; Board of Education v. Board of Education, 30 W. Va. 424, 4 S. E. 640; Board of School Directors of Pelican V. School Directors of Rock Falls, 81 Wis. 428, 51 N. W. 871, 52 N. W. 1049. See §§ 45 et seq., ante. But see People v. Board of Education, 41 Mich. 547, 49 N. W. 920; School Dist. No. 76 v. Capitol Nat. Bank, 7 Okl. 45, 54 Pac. 309; Needham v. School Dist. No. 6, 62 Vt. 176, 20 Atl. 198. 82 People v. Lodi High School Dist., 124 Cal. 694, 57 Pac. 660; Gale v. Knopf, 193 Ill. 245, 62 N. E. 229; Magnolia Dist. Tp. v. Boyer Independent Dist., 80 Iowa, 495, 45 N. W. 907; Webb v. Smith, 99 Ky. 11, 34 S. W. 704; Mullins v. Andrews, 20 Ky. L. R. 20, 45 S. W. 231; State v. Hamilton, 69 Miss. 116, 10 So. 57; State v. Sweeney, 24 Nev. 350, 55 Pac. 88. But see State v. Wofford, 90 Tex. 514, 39 S. W. 921. 83 Young v. Town of Bethany, 73 Conn. 166, 46 Atl. 822; Howard v. Forrester, 109 Ky. 336, 59 S. W. 10; Fordsville Graded School Dist. No. 96 v. McCarty, 24 Ky. L. R. 164, 68 S. W. 147; Butterfield v. Inhabitants of School Dist. No. 6, 61 Me. 583; Coulter v. School Inspectors, 84 mitted before the legal change will be effected. As a rule, the presumption of law exists that every school district exercising the powers and franchises of a district has been legally organized,s and furthermore, it is not subject to collateral attack.SG 59 Mich. 391; Graves v. Joint Board of School Inspectors, 102 Mich. 634, 61 N. W. 60; Fractional School Dist. No. 3 v. School Inspectors of Martin, 63 Mich. 611, 30 N. W. 198; Donough v. Dewey, 82 Mich. 309, 46 N. W. 782; Fractional School Dist. No. 1 v. Metcalf, 93 Mich. 497, 53 N. W. 627; State v. Gibson, 78 Mo. App. 170; Mason v. Kennedy, 89 Mo. 23, 14 S. W. 514;. Dooley v. Meese, 31 Neb. 424, 48 N. W. 143; State v. Steele, 106 Wis. 475, 82 N. W. 295. 84 Sharp v. George (Ariz.) 46 Pac. 212. The majority referred to under the statute providing that a "majority of such votes cast in favor of a high school" is the majority of those voting and has no reference to the number of qualified electors residing in the district. Beavers v. State, 60 Ark. 124, 29 S. W. 144; People v. Union High School Dist., 101 Cal. 655, 36 Pac. 119; Parr v. Miller, 146 Ill. 596, 35 N. E. 230; Hamilton v. Frette, 189 Ill. 190, 59 N. E. 588; Mason v. People, 185 Ill. 302, 56 N. E. 1069; Independent Dist. of Sheldon v. Sioux County sup'rs, 51 Iowa, 658. Where two districts are organized members of certain common territory, that one whose organization is first commenced is entitled to have the school tax levied in its favor. State v. Echols, 41 Kan. 1, 20 Pac. 523; State v. Grimshaw (Mo.) 1 S. W. 363; Howell v. Shannon, 130 Mich. 556, 90 N. W. 410; Sayre v. Tompkins, 23 Mo. 443; State v. Marshall, 48 Mo. App. 560; School Dist. No. 2 v. Gilman, 3 N. H. 168; State v. Oeshler, 25 N. J. Law (1 Dutch.) 177; Junction City School Incorporation v. School Dist. No. 6, 81 Tex. 148, 16 S. W. 742; Barrett v. Coleman, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 663, 35 S. W. 418; Hewett v. Miller, 21 Vt. 402; Lathrop v. Town of Sun. derland, 64 Vt. 35, 23 Atl. 619. 85 Fordsville Graded School Dist. No. 96 v. McCarty, 24 Ky. L. R. 164, 68 S. W. 147; Collins v. Inhabitants of School Dist. No. 7, 52 Me. 522; State v. School Dist. No. 152, 54 Minn. 213, 55 N. W. 1122; State v. Cooley, 65 Minn. 406, 68 N. W. 66. No presumption in favor of the continued legal existence of an inde pendent school district arises from the action of some of its inhabitants where it has been dissolved pursuant to statute. School Dist. of Agency v. Wallace, 75 Mo. App. 317. A de facto existence can be shown by actual user. Franklin Ave. German Sav. Inst. v. Roscoe Board of Education, 75 Mo. 408. The state alone can raise the question of irregularities in the organization of a district. State v. School Dist. No. 24, 13 Neb. 78; State v. School Dist. No. 19, 42 Neb. 499, 60 N. W. 912; Wilson v. School Dist. No. 4, 32 N. H. 118; Stevens v. Newcomb, 4 Denio. (N. Y.) 437; Whitmire V. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 47 S. W. 293. A mere irregularity will not invalidate the creation of a school district. Sherwin v. Bugbee, 16 Vt. 439; State v. Williams, 27 Vt. 755. The existence of a school district |