Van Wert v. School-District No. 8
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Hillsdale. (Lane, J.) Argued April 13, 1894. Decided May 18, 1894. Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The plaintiff was director of the defendant school-district, and had a disputed claim against such district. In an action of assumpsit for the recovery of such claim, a verdict for the defendant was rendered by direction of the court, upon the ground that the action would not lie. The charge indicates that the moderator and .assessor of the district were willing to audit a portion of the account, but were unwilling to allow another portion, .and declined to pass upon the claim. The court thought mandamus, and not assumpsit, the proper remedy.
The evidence clearly showed a disputed claim. How.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Stockwell v. Township BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- People ex rel. Schmittdiel v. Board of AuditorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
- People ex rel. Bristow v. Supervisors of Macomb Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1855
- Perry v. Village of CheboyganMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Wilkinson v. Township of Long RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by4 opinions
- Mich. Gun Owners, Inc. v. Ann Arbor Pub. Sch.Michigan Supreme Court · 2018
- Waterman-Waterbury Co. v. School District No. 4Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Township of Cedar Creek v. Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
- Bloomshield v. City of Bay CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1916