
    STATE, EX REL. ALBERT PROUTY, v. E. P. ADAMS AND OTHERS.
    
      Tie Vote Conclusive. Town System of Schools.
    
    Under the Acts oJE 1884, No. 27, a town, at its annual meeting, cast a tie vote on the question, whether it would abolish the district, and adopt the town, system ol schools; and subsequently, at the same meeting, a second vote was taken, resulting in a majority for the town system; Held, that the first vote was conclusive ; that the second one was void; and that officers elected under the town system had no authority to act.
    Quo Warranto. By the complaint and answer, it appeared, that the town of Marlboro, at its annual meeting, voted on the question, whether it would abolish the district system and adopt the town system; that'the first vote resulted in a tie vote,' — that is, 20 votes in favor of abolishing the district, and adopting the town, system, and 20 votes against it; that afterwards, at the same meeting, a second vote was taken, resulting in five majority for the town system; that the first vote was not rescinded; that the moderator of the meeting, when the first vote was taken and ballots counted, decided and announced to the legal voters that the town had refused to abolish the district system, and that this result was so recorded by the town clerk; that the defendants were elected at said meeting a board of school directors; that they elaimed to have been legally elected, were acting as such, hiring teachers, etc.; that the relator was a resident tax-payer of said town; and that, in fact, a majority of the voters in town were opposed to the town system, many having neglected to vote.
    
      Martin & Eddy, for the petitioners,
    cited School District v. Brookfield, 20 Yt. 487; Chandler v. Bradish, 23 Yt. 416; Bare. Dig. 124; Rob.’ Dig. 628; Capron v. Raistrick, 44 Vt. 515; High Ex. Rem. 49, 53, 77; State, ex rel. Page, v. Smith, 48 Yt. 266.
    
      Bates & May, for the defendants.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Rowell, J.

This case is controlled by the Sts. of 1884, No. 27, which required each town in which the school district system existed, to vote at its annual meeting in 1885 and 1886, on the question of abolishing that system and adopting the town system, and provided that the vote should be by ballot, and taken before the election of town superintendent; that the question to be voted on should be announced by the moderator, who should give opportunity for discussion, after which he should require all who favored the change to write Yes on their ballots, and all who opposed it to write No; that on the ballots being deposited in the usual manner of voting by ballot, they should he counted, and the result of the vote certified to the secretary of state, for the use of the state superintendent of education.

Under this statute, the vote first taken by the town in this case was the authoritative and conclusive vote, and the one the result of which should have been certified to the secretary of state. In taking it, the town exhausted its authority in the premises, and could not again vote on the question at that meeting, and its second vote is therefore void and of no effect, and the defendants were not legally elected.

The complaint is sustained, the writ awarded, and a judgment of ouster entered against the defendants, but without costs, as this is a friendly suit, and the defendants have done no illegal nor other improper act.  