Hazen v. Lerche

11 N.W. 413, 47 Mich. 626
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided January 25, 1882·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relator claims to be a school teacher regularly employed in a school district in one of the townships of Tuscola county. The defendant is assessor of the district. The relator holds an order for one month’s salary, which the respondent refuses to pay, and a writ is asked to compel payment. Por cause against the writ the fact is shown that the relator was hired by two members of the school board, without calling any meeting of the board, and without consultation with the respondent or his knowledge.

Held, that the cause shown was conclusive; the statute expressly requiring the convening of, the board for the transaction of their official business. Laws 1881, p. 171, § 6; p. 173, § 13.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hazen v. Lerche, 11 N.W. 413, 47 Mich. 626 (Mich. 1882).

11 N.W. 413 (Hazen v. Lerche) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McLaughlin v. Board of Education
238 N.W. 374 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1931)
Chalmers v. School District No. 1
136 N.W. 386 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Pugh v. School District No. 5
114 Mo. App. 688 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Cowley v. School District No. 3
90 N.W. 680 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Graham v. School District
54 P. 185 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1898)
School Town v. Powner
26 N.E. 484 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)
School District v. Bennett
52 Ark. 511 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1889)
Crane v. School District Number Six
28 N.W. 105 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)