Curry v. Lasell Seminary Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1897
• Citation: 168 Mass. 7,46 N.E. 110
• Parties: CURRY v. LASELL SEMINARY CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

168 Mass. 7

46 N.E. 110

CURRY v. LASELL SEMINARY CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

February 25, 1897

COUNSEL

Arthur

H. Russell, for plaintiff.

Alfred Hemenway and Charles H. Barnes, Jr., for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The plaintiff placed her daughter as a pupil in the boarding school of the defendant corporation, under a contract to leave her there to be boarded, instructed, and cared for through the school year. At the end of six weeks, on Saturday, the plaintiff asked that her daughter be permitted to spend the following Sunday and Monday with her, away from the school. Up to this time the daughter had already been allowed, on application to the preceptress, to spend three Sundays with her mother since entering the school, and the plaintiff's request on this occasion was denied. She insisted, took her daughter away with her, and kept her until the afternoon of the following Monday. Thereupon the defendant refused to allow the daughter to remain longer in the school, unless the plaintiff would accept the defendant's construction of the contract, which was that the officers of the school had absolute discretion to determine when a pupil should be permitted to be absent. The plaintiff refused to accept this construction, took her daughter away and brought this suit to recover the money which she had advanced for a half year's board and tuition.

Before the beginning of the school year, the plaintiff signed and forwarded to the defendant a paper as follows "Application. I hereby apply for a place in Lasell Seminary for Belle A. Curry for the year beginning in September, 1894. I have read in the Lasell catalogue the financial and other conditions on which pupils are received and I consider myself bound by them. Mrs. S.S. Curry, Parent. Said Belle A. Curry is 20 years of age, is in good health, has been attending Northwestern University, and intends to take a regular course." The plaintiff testified that the catalogue had been sent to her some time before she made this application, and that she had read it. Under the heading "Regulations" in the catalogue are the words: "Payment is to be as stated on the next page, and no deduction is made for absence except in cases of protracted illness, when one-half the price of board (not tuition) is refunded. Parents or guardians who place pupils here are understood to accept the conditions as defined in this catalogue." The next page of the catalogue called for an "advance payment of three hundred dollars," which the plaintiff made.

The only question in this case is, which of the parties was right in construing the contract? A disagreement had arisen between them as to whether the daughter should be permitted to go away from the school frequently to spend Sunday with her mother, and the question was, which of them under their contract, had a right to decide? If there had been no express contract, the plaintiff, by placing her daughter as a pupil in the school, would have impliedly agreed that she should obey all reasonable rules and regulations of the school. This is the duty of every pupil who attends a public school, and a parent has no right to have his child remain in a public school if he persists in willfully disregarding such reasonable rules. Sherman v. Inhabitants of Charlestown, 8...