Andrews v. School-District No. 4
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiffs brought this action in the district court for Otter Tail county, to recover for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to'defendant. The action was tried, without a jury, before Baxter, J., who ordered judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal from an order refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtGilpillan, C. J.
It is conceded that the express contract by two of defendant’s trustees with plaintiffs, for the purchase of the articles to recover the value of which this action is brought, was not binding upon the defendant, because not made or authorized at a meeting of the trustees as a board. In Currie v. School-District, 35 Minn. 163, (27 N. W. Rep. 922,) it wa.s decided that such contracts must be authorized by the board at a meeting called for the transaction of such business after due notice to all its members. The plaintiffs must recover, if at all, on an implied undertaking of the district to pay…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Currie v. School-District No. 26Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
3Cited by10 opinions
- City of Minneapolis v. CanterburySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Kreatz v. St. Cloud School DistrictSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Martin v. Common School District No. 3Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- State ex rel. Morris v. ClarkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Tracy Cement Tile Co. v. City of TracySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.