White v. School District No. 1

Michigan Supreme Court

White v. School District No. 1

209 N.W. 68, 235 Mich. 338, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 707

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 7, 1926

DocketDocket No. 37.

StatusPublished

This text of 209 N.W. 68 (White v. School District No. 1) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

White v. School District No. 1, 209 N.W. 68, 235 Mich. 338, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 707 (Mich. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

The electors of defendant school district determined to bond by a vote of 125 to 124. The election was contested on quo warranto. A judgment for defendant is reviewed on case-made.

Plaintiff’s only contention is that a voter, one Russell A. Butler, “was not a legal voter because he did not have the property qualification” required by section 17, Act No. 301, Pub. Acts 1921 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1922, § 5664), namely, quoting, “who owns property which is assessed for school taxes in the district.”

Butler was member of a copartnership trading as S. R. Butler & Son. They filed, in 1917, with the county clerk a certificate of copartnership. The partnership owned property assessed for school taxes in the district at, and for years prior to, the time in question. On the tax roll the property was assessed to S. R. Butler. But Russell A. Butler owned with his partner property “which is assessed” for school taxes in the district, therefore he had the required qualification. See King v. Board of Canvassers, 37 R. I. 254 (92 Atl. 569) ; Saxton v. Mayor, etc., of Delaware City (Del. Ch.), 88 Atl. 605.

Judgment affirmed.

Bird, C. J., and Sharpe, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.

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

Clark, J.

The electors of defendant school district determined to bond by a vote of 125 to 124. The election was contested on quo warranto. A judgment for defendant is reviewed on case-made.

Plaintiff’s only contention is that a voter, one Russell A. Butler, “was not a legal voter because he did not have the property qualification” required by section 17, Act No. 301, Pub. Acts 1921 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1922, § 5664), namely, quoting, “who owns property which is assessed for school taxes in the district.”

Butler was member of a copartnership trading as S. R. Butler & Son. They filed, in 1917, with the county clerk a certificate of copartnership. The partnership owned property assessed for school taxes in the district at, and for years prior to, the time in question. On the tax roll the property was assessed to S. R. Butler. But Russell A. Butler owned with his partner property “which is assessed” for school taxes in the district, therefore he had the required qualification. See King v. Board of Canvassers, 37 R. I. 254 (92 Atl. 569) ; Saxton v. Mayor, etc., of Delaware City (Del. Ch.), 88 Atl. 605.

Judgment affirmed.

Bird, C. J., and Sharpe, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 N.W. 68, 235 Mich. 338, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-school-district-no-1-mich-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack