Stockdale v. School Dist. No. 2 of Wayland
| Decision Date | 27 October 1881 |
| Citation | 10 N.W. 349,47 Mich. 226 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | STOCKDALE v. SCHOOL-DISTRICT NO. 2 OF WAYLAND and another. |
A school-district in its annual meeting may lawfully recognize and pay equitable claims even though they are not strictly legal demands against it.
A vote to issue school-district bonds in settlement of a demand, if in excess of the limit fixed by law, may be sustained up to the legal limit.
A corporate act which can only be taken by a two-thirds vote cannot be rescinded by a bare majority.
The bill in this case is filed by tax-payers of a school-district to restrain the district board from issuing bonds. The facts are set forth in the answer and are as follows: One White was contractor for building a school-house for the district, and completed his work and received the contract price therefor. He also performed extra labor amounting in value to $181, upon which $50 were paid. At the annual school meeting of 1880 the electors by a two-thirds vote, on his petition showing that he had lost money on the contract voted to pay him in settlement $730.31, and to issue bonds therefor. Voters dissatisfied with this action procured a special meeting to be called a few days thereafter, at which the proposition to rescind the former action was voted upon and a majority but not two-thirds voted in its favor. The moderator decided that a two-thirds vote was essential, and that consequently the rescinding vote was lost. This suit was then instituted, making the district and White defendants, and the court of chancery awarded a perpetual injunction. White alone appealed.
1. It is insisted on behalf of the complainants that the district had no power to vote a bonus to the contractor. But there is no statute which forbids it, and as contracts are not required to be let to the lowest bidder, we do not think there was any want of power in this regard. On the showing made by White he had a legal claim to the amount of $131, and a strong equity to all that was allowed him; and it has often been decided that municipal corporations like individuals need not stand on strict legal rights, but might recognize equitable claims and provide for them. Brewster v. Syracuse, 19 N.Y. 116; Friend v. Gilbert, 108 Mass. 408; Blanding v. Barr, 13 Cal. 343; Sherman v. Carr, 8 R.I. 431; Baker v. Windham, 13 Me. 74; Wilkinson v. Cheatham, 43 Ga. 258.
2. There seems, however, to have been a...
To continue reading
Request your trial