Moor v. Newfield

• Decision Date: 01 April 1826
• Citation: 4 Me. 44
• Parties: MOOR v. NEWFIELD
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

4 Me. 44

MOOR v. NEWFIELD

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, York

April, 1826

IN a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas, to reverse a judgment rendered in favor of the present defendants, in an action of assumpsit brought by the present plaintiff, the case was thus:--

The plaintiff, being duly qualified as a schoolmaster, was employed to keep the school in district No. 2, in Newfield for the month of April 1824, at the agreed price of fifteen dollars, which he accordingly did; and for which this action was brought. He was employed by a person claiming to be one of the school committee, or school agent, at the request of two other persons claiming to act as school committee-men of the district for that year.

A legal meeting of the inhabitants of Newfield had been called to be holden April 7, 1823, for the purpose, among other things, of determining whether the town would authorize the school districts to choose their own agents; and at this meeting it was determined in the affirmative. At the same meeting it was also voted that the standing clerk of each district should notify the several district meetings, by giving public notice at the most public place within the district, ten days, at least, previous to the meeting. But these votes, respecting the manner of calling the district meetings, were passed without any article in the warrant for that purpose; and apparently without any request of the district.

The plaintiff, at the trial, offered to prove that the persons who employed him were chosen a committee, at a meeting of the inhabitants of the school district No. 2, in Newfield, held on a notice given to them by the then acting clerk of the district, who had acted as such for several years previous and that all the legal voters, who were not incapable of attending, did attend and vote at the meeting.

He also offered to prove that the money of the district, to the amount of more than forty dollars, remained unexpended because a person who had been employed before him to keep the school, was not qualified as a schoolmaster, and had been indicted and convicted for presuming to act in that office without the legal qualifications, and dismissed from the school; and that the inhabitants making complaints because the school was not supplied with an instructor, the plaintiff was employed for that purpose.

This evidence was rejected by Whitman C. J. who tried the cause and being of opinion that the plaintiff had not made out his case, he ordered a nonsuit; to which the plaintiff filed exceptions and brought up the case by writ of error at common law. The errors assigned were, 1st--the rejection of evidence offered; 2d --that the evidence admitted was...