Cleveland v. Amy

• Citation: 50 N.W. 293,88 Mich. 374
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 13 November 1891
• Parties: CLEVELAND v. AMY.

50 N.W. 293

88 Mich. 374

CLEVELAND v. AMY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 13, 1891

Application for writ of mandamus by Clarence E. Cleveland to compel Edwin M. Amy, assessor of school-district No. 8 of the township of Tekonsha, to pay a warrant drawn on respondent in relator's favor. Writ issued.

J C. Patterson, for relator. A. A Ellis, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Winsor, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Relator is a school-teacher, and on the 31st day of August, 1891 entered into a written contract with Daniel B. Sanders, P. H Doyle, and the respondent, who then constituted the district board, to teach the school in said district, commencing on September 7th, during the term to be voted by the district at the annual meeting. An order was duly issued by Mr. Doyle as moderator, and Mr. Sanders as director, drawn upon respondent as assessor, for the payment to relator of a certain sum due him as wages. The assessor declined to pay, and relator petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel such payment. Two reasons are given for the refusal to pay the order: (1) That the contract with the relator was made with the old board, and they had no authority to contract for the year, after the terms of two of the board would expire. (2) That at the annual election held in September one W. E. Chapman was elected director and one W. B. Durham was elected moderator; that they duly qualified; and, therefore, that Sanders and Doyle were not members of the board, and had no authority to act.

1. The difficulty in securing competent teachers, if school boards were obliged to wait until the annual meeting in September is apparent. It is exemplified in this case, where the relator has taught in this school for two years, and could not wait for the annual meeting, as he had other opportunities offered him. There is usually no change in the majority of the board, as only one officer is elected annually. The term of Sanders expired by limitation, and Doyle had been appointed to fill a vacancy. The question would hardly arise, except under circumstances like the present. It was decided in Tappan v. School-Dist., 44 Mich. 500, 7 N.W. 73, that the trustees of graded public schools can make binding contracts for teaching before the year opens. The reasoning in that case applies with equal force to the present one. The power to employ teachers conferred by statute upon the district boards of primary schools is coextensive with that conferred upon the board of trustees of graded schools. In the former case the law reads: "The district board shall hire and contract with such duly-qualified teachers as may be required." How. St. � 5065. In...