
    MILLS et al. v. LYNCH, County Supt., et al.
    No. 17288
    Opinion Filed June 29, 1926.
    (Syllabus.)
    1. School8 and School Districts-Consolidation of Districts-Procedure--Petition by Voters.
    By the provisions o~ section 10462, Comp. Stat. 1921, all or a part of any school district adjacent to a consolidated school dis-tricc shall be attached to and become a part of such consolidated district upon petition to the county superintendent, signed by a majority e~f the legal voters of such territory desiring to be ~itacbed and by the board of directors of such consolidated district.
    2. Same-Sufficiency of Petition - Withdrawal of Name by Signer.
    A voter signing a petition for the cone solidation of school districts has the absolute right to withdraw his name therefrom at any time before said petition is acted upon, and when such name is so withdrawn, it cannot thereafter be counted as one of the signers of said petition.
    3. Same-Insufficiency of Signers-Effect.
    A petition to attach all or an~..J2art of a school disti~ct adjacent to a consolidated district, to such consolidated district, which dhes not contain the names of a majority of the voters in said district or territory desiring to be attached, is insufficient to authorize the county superintend~nt to make an order consolidating said districts.
    On writ of certiorari on application of J. L. Mills et al., against A. G. Lynch, County Superintendent of Public Instruction of Kingfisher County, and others.
    Reversed, with directions to dismiss.
    H. C. Brownlee and ID. D. Brownlee, for plaintiffs.
    R. F. Shutler, for defendants.
   NICHOLSON, C. J.

This cause is here by certiorari to review the action of the county superintendent of pnblic instruction of Kingfisher county, in ordering the annexation of school district No. 49 to consolidated school district No. 2, of said county.

At the time t.iiis proceeding was had, there were 04 legal voters residing in school district No. 49. On February 11, 1920, a petition bearing the names of 35 voters of said district was presented to the county superintendent, asking that said district be consolidated with consolidated school district No. 2. Afterwards, and before said petition was acted upon by the county superintendent, lour of the persons signing said petition removed from said district, and 9 others who had signed such petitions withdrew, in writing, their names therefrom. On March 9, 1926, the county superintendent, acting upon the petition as filed, made the order of consolidation here complained of.

Note. — See 35 Cyc. p. 850.

By the provisions of section 10462, Comp. Stat. 1921, all or a part of any school district adjacent to a consolidated school district shall be attached to and become a part of such consolidated district upon petition to the county superintendent signed by a ma-' jority of the legal voters of such territory desiring to be attached and by the board of directors of such consolidated district. By these provisions the county superintendent was authorized' to' make the order of consolidation only upon a petirion signed by a majority of the legal voters of the district. These voters withdrawing their names had a right to do so at any time before the petition was acted upon by the county superintendent, and the names so withdrawn could not be counted as signers of the petition. School District No. 24, Custer County, v. Renick, County Superintendent, 83 Okla. 158, 201 Pac. 241. The petition, when acted upon, did not contain a majority of the legal voters of the district, and the county superintendent was without authority to order the consolidation.

The cause is reversed, with directions to dismiss the petition.

All the Justices concur, except PHELPS, J., absent.  