School Dist. 4, of Easton v. Snell

• Decision Date: 03 April 1872
• Citation: 24 Mich. 350
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: School District No. 4, of Easton, v. Jacob Snell and another

24 Mich. 350

School District No. 4, of Easton, v. Jacob Snell and another

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 3, 1872

Heard January 10, 1872

Error to Ionia circuit.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

L. B Soule and William O. Webster, for plaintiff in error.

Lemuel Clute, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Graves J.

This case originated in a justice's court where the defendants in error obtained judgment. The plaintiff in error thereupon appealed to the circuit court, and the case being there tried without a jury, it resulted as before, and the district brought error. The case was decided in the circuit court upon a state of facts agreed upon, and the amount involved was substantially fixed by such statement at the sum specified in the judgment. The ground of defense was that the district was not liable at all.

It appears that in 1865 Snell was director, Booker moderator, and one Bemis, assessor of the district, and that having no books for district records except one made of foolscap sewed or pinned together and nearly full, these officers purchased for the district, on the recommendation of the superintendent of public instruction, a set of bound books and some blanks, known as "Adams' System of School Records." The price was thirty-four dollars, which the district admits was the fair value, and there is no complaint that the books were not suitable for the purpose for which they were procured, and it is not pretended that the district was properly supplied with paper, blanks and record materials, at the time of the purchase. An order was drawn for the price, with interest at ten per cent, on the township treasurer, and payable out of the expense fund of the district; but it was not paid. The officers of the district proceeded to use the books, or rather part of them, as record books of the district; and continued so to use them for about two years and a half. The director having presented the account for the books at two annual meetings, it was rejected, and allowance and payment of it positively refused. The defendants in error became the owners of the claim, and instituted the suit for its recovery. The district denies the authority of the board, and of any and each of its members, to purchase any books and blanks for records, at the expense of the district, without a regular vote of the electors previously given, directing or authorizing the act, and this claim raised the main question in the case. In its practical aspect, this question is quite important, but its determination is not difficult. It is properly one of construction of the school laws in their bearing upon the duties of the district and of its officers.

The necessity for clear, full and orderly kept records of the doings of school districts is too palpable to require statement or explanation; and if there were no legislative regulations on the subject, the patent and unanswerable reasons for the preservation, in a suitable and durable form of apt memorials of the organization and proceedings of these bodies, would require that appropriate books and blanks should be provided by somebody; and as the districts would naturally be the owners and controllers of their records, and, strictly speaking, the parties solely benefited, and as no one else would be under any duty to furnish the books and blanks without compensation, it would seem to follow on general grounds, that the...