Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/74

 payer, and elector within the territory sought to be included and organized into the new district.

The fifty-five electors who signed the original petition for the new school district constituted two thirds of all the school electors residing in the territory proposed to be organized into the new school district. The total of such electors, as above stated, being 78. If the names of certain of the electors who signed the original petition for the organization of the new school district, and who were resident electors of the proposed new district, and who subsequently signed the remonstrance, being in number, 11, are deducted from the whole number of those who signed the original petition, to wit; 55, there remain 44, and this number is not two thirds of 78, the whole number of electors in the proposed new district.

The county commissioners and the county superintendent on August 20th, acting jointly, found that the organization of the proposed new district, out of district No. 7, was desirable and necessary. This finding was not made until after the withdrawal of the names of the 11 electors residing in the proposed new district, from the original petition.

On August 20th, the commissioners adopted the following resolution:

“Resolved, that all of school district No. 7, Dickey county, North Dakota—save and except sections 4, 8, and 16, and south half of section 8, and sotith half of section 15, and the village of Monango, in the said south half of section 8, all in township 131, north of range 63, west, in Dickey county, North Daokta, be and the same is hereby separated and divided from said Keystone School District No. 7, as heretofore existing, and is hereby organized into and made a separate school district, with full powers as such; and the prayer of said petitioners for division i is hereby granted; and such division is desirable and necessary.”

The appellant assigns only two errors.

(1) That the court erred in holding that the signing of the remonstrance petition, by 11 of the signers of the original petition, for a division, was a withdrawal of those ‘names from the original petition.

(2) That it erred in holding that the board of county commissioners and the superintendent of schools, acting jointly, were ousted of jurisdiction to hear the petition on its merits; and in holding that the order entered for the division and organization of the new school district was