Farrell v. School-District No. 2
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Huron. (Beach, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
The defendant is a graded school-district, with five trustees. Plaintiff had been employed as a teacher in the school during the latter part of the school year 1891. It is claimed that she was employed under a written contract dated June 27, made pursuant to a resolution of the school board on June 20, for the ensuing-school year, commencing in September. She presented herself in the schoolroom on the morning of the opening of school, to perform her contract, but was informed by the director that another teacher had been employed. She also appeared on the second and third mornings for a like *45p…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Howard v. . DalyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Wood v. WeimarSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Crane v. School District Number SixMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Tappan v. School District No. 1Michigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Krolik v. GrahamMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
3Cited by33 opinions
- Farley v. Board of Education of City of PerrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Flickema v. Henry Kraker Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Tate v. School District No. 11Supreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Edgecomb v. Traverse City School DistrictMichigan Supreme Court · 1954
- Zeller v. Prior Lake Public SchoolsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.