Legal Opinion

Commercial State Bank v. School District No. 3

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 19, 1923No. Docket No. 107PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

(after stating the facts). The two contentions of plaintiff’s counsel which we shall consider are these: (1) That the district board was authorized by section 5676, 2 Comp. Laws 1915, then in force to make the repairs on the schoolhouse and to borrow money in anticipation of the tax; and (2) that the district ratified the action of the board. Defendant’s contention is that the board under the guise of repairing the schoolhouse practically built a new schoolhouse and that ratification of the action of the board was not efficient because no notice was given in the notice of the annual meeting…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Coit v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Auditor General v. SparrowMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  3. City of Saginaw v. Consumers' Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Crane v. School District Number SixMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Stockdale v. School District No. TwoMichigan Supreme Court · 1881

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Barrow v. City of Detroit Election CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
  2. Webb v. Township of WakefieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
  3. American LaFrance & Foamite Industries, Inc. v. Village of CliffordMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Diponio v. City of Garden CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
  5. A. J. Smith Construction Co. v. City of Marine CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1934

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API