# State Ex Rel. Normandy School District of St. Louis County v. Small

> Supreme Court of Missouri · April 9, 1962 · 356 S.W.2d 864

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660967

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, at the Relation of NORMANDY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Missouri, and the Curators of the University of Missouri, Relators, v. Fred R. SMALL, as President of the School Board of the Normandy School District of St. Louis County, Missouri, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** April 9, 1962
- **Citations:** 356 S.W.2d 864; 1962 Mo. LEXIS 705
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eager
- **Judges:** Dalton, Leedy, Eager, Hyde, Hollingsworth, Storckman, Westhues
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660967

## Opinion text

EAGER, Judge
(concurring in result).
It is my view that if § 165.833 (Cum. Supp.1961) had so restricted the power “to lease or sell” property that it could only be leased or sold to a Junior College District, then the purpose and intent of the section would have been germane to the purpose of the act and fairly within its title. As the section now stands, such a conveyance may be made to any institution “offering education beyond grade twelve.” Those provisions necessarily include a University offering a full four-year course and graduate work. The act purports to deal only with Junior College Districts which propose to offer “13th and 14th year courses.” Section 165.800; Section 165.793. The Curators of the University are clearly not a Junior College District; the section, as it now stands, is broad enough to authorize a conveyance to them and, as thus construed, it is not germane to the title of the act or to its basic content. My conclusion is that the conveyance here is invalid, and that § 165.833 is, in its present form, unconstitutional. In my opinion the section could readily be amended so as to restrict the power to convey, as suggested, and thus be constitutional.
I do not concur in that part of the principal opinion holding the conveyance invalid because of inadequate consideration.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660967. Public record. Not legal advice.