Smith v. School-district No. 2
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Lake. (Judkins, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts, and points of counsel, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
The plaintiff was hired by the proper officers of the defendant school-district as a teacher, and the contract prescribed by law in such cases was duly executed in writing, and signed by the proper persons.
Under such contract, the plaintiff taught the district school from September 13, 1886, until the,third day of March, 1887, at which time the school-house burned. She was employed for a term of nine months, and was to be paid $60 per month; such payment to be made on or before the fourteenth day of June, 1887.
The next day after the burning of the school-house, the plaintiff notified the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Township of Leoni v. TaylorMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
- Crane v. School District Number SixMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by6 opinions
- Edgecomb v. Traverse City School DistrictMichigan Supreme Court · 1954
- Libby v. Inhabitants of DouglasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Bruinsma v. Wyoming Public SchoolsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972
- Clune v. School District No. 3Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
- Boyce v. Royal Oak Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.