Fox v. Shipman
| Decision Date | 13 October 1869 |
| Citation | 19 Mich. 218 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William D. Fox v. Joseph D. Shipman |
Heard October 13, 1869
Error to Calhoun Circuit.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by William D. Fox against Joseph D. Shipman before a Justice of the Peace for Calhoun County.
The plaintiff declared verbally as follows: "Plaintiff declares v. defendant on the common counts in assumpsit generally, and specially on an acceptance of a written instrument, which written instrument is in the words and figures following, to wit: "To the Treasurer of the township of Sheridan, pay to S. E. Geiger, Assessor of School District Number One in said township, the sum of two hundred and thirty-four dollars out of moneys voted by the said District, in your hands belonging to said District.
"Dated at Sheridan, this 19th day of December, 1868.
"Signed CHARLES MUFFLEY, Director.
It was endorsed:
The defense was the general issue and notice. On the trial before the Justice a judgment was rendered for the defendant; and the plaintiff removed the cause, by appeal to the Circuit Court for the County of Calhoun.
At the trial in the Circuit Court the warrant was offered in evidence and objected to. The Court sustained the objection and, there being no other evidence, directed a judgment of nonsuit to be entered; which the plaintiff brings into this Court by writ of error.
Judgment of the Court affirmed with costs.
T. G. Pray, for plaintiff in error.
J. G. Lodge, for defendant in error.
OPINIONThe Court held, tat the warrant, or school order--as the bearer of which the plaintiff brought his action--was not a negotiable instrument: that it was an official order made by public officers--the Moderator and Director of the school district (Laws of 1867, p. 43, § 53) upon another, the Township Treasurer, to pay a sum of money to still another, the Assessor, who is the disbursing officer of the district, Comp. Laws, § 2,275); the duties of each of which are defined by the statutes: that the paying and receiving of the money were official acts, performed in the execution of public trusts, and that the Treasurer was under no obligation to pay the money to any other person than the Assessor named in the warrant....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hall
...were adopted the law in this State was in accord with the proposition that a warrant was not a negotiable instrument. 9 Fox v. Shipman, 19 Mich. 218 (1869); Burns v. Bender, 36 Mich. 195 (1877). We feel that the difference between a negotiable as opposed to a non-negotiable instrument is no......
-
Shinn v. Board of Education
... ... 501] execute ... negotiable instruments. See 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. (4th Ed.) § ... 427; Stienbeck v. Treasurer, 22 Ohio St. 144; ... School Directors v. Fogleman, 76 Ill. 189; State ... v. Huff, 63 Mo. 288; 2 Beach, Pub. Corp. § 799; Fox ... v. Shipman, 19 Mich. 218 ... [20 S.E. 605] ... On the ... 14th day of November, 1891, F. M. Durbin, of the city of ... Parkersburg, for a valuable consideration, sold and delivered ... the three orders to the appellant, Thomas E. Davis. They bear ... no indorsement. On the 18th ... ...
-
School District No. 9 in Midland v. School District No. 5 in Midland
... ... the warrant of the proper district officers. It has been held ... by this court that the town treasurer has no right to pay ... school moneys to any one but the assessor, and cannot pay ... over money on warrants or otherwise to other persons. Fox ... v. Shipman, 19 Mich. 218. Any other kind of order is ... void upon its face and will not protect the treasurer ... Fract. School Dist. No. 4 v. Mallary 23 Mich. 111 ... There ... was no lawful way in which any of this money could pass into ... the hands of school district No. 5, the defendant, ... ...
-
Etui v. Bd. Of Educ. Et At.
...v. Treasurer, 22 Ohio St. 144; School Directors v. Fogleman, 76 111. 18:); State v. Huff, 63 Mo. 288; 2 Beach. Pub. Corp. § 799; Fox v. Shipment, 19 Mich. 218. On the 14th day of November, 1891, F. M. Durbin of the city of Parkersburg for a valuable consideration sold and delivered the thre......