School-District v. Pillsbury
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Debt, to recover school money, under Gen. St., c. 77, s. 6, in the name of Union School District No. 1 in Bow, and 23 in Concord..
Read the full summary
Debt, to recover school money, under Gen. St., c. 77, s. 6, in the name of Union School District No. 1 in Bow, and 23 in Concord.. The defendants were the mayor and aldermen of Concord, from March, 1875, to March, 1877. The plaintiff district was formed in 1850 of disti'ict No. 1 in Bow, and part of No. 18 in Concord, under Laws of 1845, c. 221, s. 2. The Concord record of the proceedings shows that the plaintiff was to be known as District No. 22 in Concord, until otherwise ordered by “ said town.” The record in Bow is the same, except the word towns is used instead of “ town.” The union…
1Opinion of the CourtBingham, J.
However it might beheld as to the power of a corporation to change its name when it is fixed in its charter, it is clear that when a quasi-corporation like a school-district is organized under a general statute that does not require a name to be designated, it may acquire a name by reputation, and sue and be sued by it. Dillon on Municipal Corp., c. 8, s. 120; School District v. Blakeslee, 13 Conn. 227.
Gen. St., c. 78, s. 3, provide that all existing districts, however organized, shall continue to be such, subject to be altered or discontinued, according to existing laws. Concord and Bow, in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- South School District v. BlakesleeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1839
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sargent v. Union School-DistrictSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- School-District v. MorrillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879