School Dist. No. 4 v. School Dist. No. 2
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. Trial by court at the December term, 1891, Taft, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff’ The defendant excepts. The opinion states the case. The committee could not bind the defendant for the instruction of its scholars without the vote of the district.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Trial by court at the December term, 1891, Taft, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff’ The defendant excepts. The opinion states the case. The committee could not bind the defendant for the instruction of its scholars without the vote of the district. Woodcock v. Bolster, 35 Yt. 132; Goodwin v. Perkins, 39 Yt. 578; Chittenden v. School Dist., 56 Yt. 551; No. 9 of the Acts of 1888, s. 105. . The appointment of an agent without a suitable warning would not make the district liable for his acts. No. 9, Acts 1888, s. 90; Hunt v. School District, 11 Yt. 300; Shaw v. Bug-bee, 16 Yt.…
1Opinion of the Court
*529The opinion of the court was delivered by
TYLER, J.
To warrant the prudential committee of one school district in making a contract with an adjoining district for the instruction of the pupils of the former in the schools of the latter, all the essential requirements of section 105, No. 9, Laws of 1888, must have been complied with. That section is as follows:
“A district may, under an appropriate ai-ticle in the warning, by a two-thirds vote, authorize its prudential committee to arrange for the instruction of all its legal pupils, in the studies prescribed by law, in the schools of an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Manhattan Hardware Co. v. Phalen, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County1889
- Moore v. BeattieSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Chittenden v. School District No. 1Supreme Court of Vermont · 1884
- Harrington v. Sixth School DistrictSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Ovitt v. ChaseSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Walsh v. FarringtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1933