Norton v. Tinmouth School District No. 7
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit in the common counts. The action was referred to a referee who found and reported that the plaintiff was the sole prudential committee of the defendant school district for the years 1855 and 1856 ; that as such committee he furnished for the use of the ¡¡school in the years 1855 and 1856, in addition to the items not questioned, two cords of wood each year for which he charged $8. In the year 1858 he made a claim of $4. on the district for two blackboards, all of…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit in the common counts. The action was referred to a referee who found and reported that the plaintiff was the sole prudential committee of the defendant school district for the years 1855 and 1856 ; that as such committee he furnished for the use of the ¡¡school in the years 1855 and 1856, in addition to the items not questioned, two cords of wood each year for which he charged $8. In the year 1858 he made a claim of $4. on the district for two blackboards, all of which the referee allowed, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following statement of facts : It had for many…
1Opinion of the CourtPierpoint, J.
It is by law made the duty-of the prudential committee of every school district, “to see that fuel and furniture, and all appendages and things necessary for the advantage of the school, be provided.” No question is made in this ease but that all the articles furnished to the district, and for which this suit is brought, were such as the plaintiff, as prudential committee, was by the statute required to furnish, and were necessary at the time they were furnished. |t
But it is said he cannot recover for the wood, because it was not furnished in the way that the district had been in the habit…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Board of Education v. PurseSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Brown v. School DistrictSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883