Hunt v. School District No. 20
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, for money paid and for work and labor performed. Plea, non assumpsit. Issue to the country. On the trial in the county court, the plaintiff claimed to. have acted as the agent of school district No. 20, in Norwich, in removing a certain school house, for doing which he was afterwards prosecuted and thereby put to great expense.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for money paid and for work and labor performed. Plea, non assumpsit. Issue to the country. On the trial in the county court, the plaintiff claimed to. have acted as the agent of school district No. 20, in Norwich, in removing a certain school house, for doing which he was afterwards prosecuted and thereby put to great expense. To prove his agency, he offered in evidence a record of said school district, showing a warning for a meeting of the district to be held on the seventh day of November, 1837, at the school house, dated November 1, 1837. There was no article in the warning…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
The only question in the present case is in regard to the legality of the vote of the school district, under which the plaintiff claims to act. The defendants could act in their corporate capacity only in the mode pointed out by the general statutes of the state, which require that all meetings of school districts should be warned at least seven days previous to the meeting. The warning for this meeting was dated the first day of November, and the meeting held on the seventh of that month, giving but six days notice, which is the same, for…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Russell v. WellingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Kuhl v. MeyerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Sherwin v. BugbeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Lumijarvi v. School District No. 25Oregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Commonwealth v. Doran, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County1949