Legal Opinion

Lee v. School-District Number Two

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 1888PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Alcona. (Tuttle, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

The plaintiff, on October 14, 1884, entered into the usual written contract with the officers of the defendant school-district as a teacher. She ivas to teach nine months, and receive therefor the sum of $315. When she commenced teaching under this contract, the plaintiff had no certificate received upon a regular examination of the county board of school examiners, but was *362granted a special certificate by tbe secretary of tbe board, one J. E. Fair, under the statute as it was at the time, and before the amendment of 1887.1

The statute provides as follows:

“The secretary of the board of school…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Attorney General v. HowlettMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Devoe v. School-district No. ThreeMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

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

Powered by the Exa API