Thompson v. Dist. Bd. of Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Moorland Tp.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 127.,127.
• Citation: 233 N.W. 439,252 Mich. 629
• Parties: THOMPSON v. DISTRICT BOARD OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF MOORLAND TP. et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

252 Mich. 629

233 N.W. 439

THOMPSON

v.DISTRICT BOARD OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF MOORLAND TP. et al.

No. 127.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 2, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Muskegon County, in Chancery; John Vanderwerp, Judge.

Suit by Levi Thompson for the benefit of the Treasurer of School District No. 1, in Moorland Township, and Muskegon County, against the District Board of School District No. 1 of Moorland Township and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Willard J. Turner, of Muskegon, for appellant.

Balgooyen & Cook, of Muskegon Heights, for appellees.

NORTH, J.

By his bill of complaint plaintiff asks the court to enjoin the officers of school district No. 1, Moorland township, Muskegon county, from entering into a teacher's contract with Mrs. Jane Spoelman. Plaintiff alleges that such a contract would be against public policy and void because Jane Spoelman is the wife of Jake Spoelman, who is one of the officers of this school district. Plaintiff also urges that because of the marriage relation such a contract executed by Mr. Spoelman in behalf of the district would violate the following provision of the general school law:

‘* * * It shall be illegal for any member of the board of education or district board to perform any labor except as provided in this act, or furnish any material or supplies for the school district in which he is an officer, or to be personally interested in any way whatever, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the district in which he holds office. Any act herein prohibited, if performed by any such school officer, shall be deemed a misdemeanor and he shall be liable to the punishment provided for in this chapter.’ Pub. Acts 1927, No. 319, part 2, c. 36, § 9.

In passing upon the question presented we should be mindful of volume 3, § 11478, Comp. Laws 1915, which provides:

‘Each and every married woman in the state of Michigan shall be absolutely entitled to have, hold, own, retain and enjoy any and all earnings acquired by any such married woman as the result of her personal efforts; and to sell or otherwise dispose of any and all such earnings, and to make contracts in relation thereto to the same extent that any such married woman could have or do if unmarried.’

The director of the school district, believing that under the circumstances a valid contract could not be made with Mrs. Spoelman, refused to be a party thereto. If Mr. Spoelman was legally disqualified from acting in behalf of the district, the contract with Mrs. Spoelman was invalid, since the statute requires two of the three members of the school board to sign a teacher's contract. Act No. 319, Pub. Acts 1927, pp. 610, 680.

Notwithstanding the provision of the school law broadly provides that a school officer shall not ‘be personally interested in any way whatsoever, either directly or indirectly’ in the contract with the district, we think it is not applicable to the case here presented. Under section 11478 above quoted, Mr. Spoelman clearly has no financial interest in this contract. Any wages which may be paid Mrs. Spoelman as a teacher will be her individual property the same as though she were an entire stranger to Mr. Spoelman. The...