TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Board of Education

CLARK v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DETROIT

Clark v. Bd. of Educ., 71 N.W. 177 (Mich. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 11, 1897
Judges
Hooker, Other
Citations
71 N.W. 177112 Mich. 6561897 Mich. LEXIS 1032
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Public Officers—Resignation. TKe resignation, of a public officer is not complete until it has been accepted by the proper authority.
Summary
Certiorari to Wayne; Carpenter, J. Mandamus by John E. Clark to compel the board of education of the city of Detroit to recognize him as a member of such board. From an order granting the writ, respondent brings certiorari. The relator tendered to the mayor of the city of Detroit his resignation from the office of “member of the board of education,” to take effect on November 15, 1896, and gave notice to the board of his action. Before November 15th he was requested by the mayor to reconsider his resignation, and continue to hold the office, and, at his request, the mayor said the same to him in writing on December 14th, as follows: ‘ ‘ I desire to say that your resignation has not been accepted, and would request that you serve out your time, if consistent with your private affairs. “H. S. Pingree, Mayor.” On December 16th relator notified the secretary of the board that the mayor had refused to accept his resignation, and upon the issue, “Did the mayor expressly accept the resignation of the petitioner on or before December 14, 1896 ? ” the circuit court found that he did not. On February 11th the board refused to recognize relator as a member of the board, whereupon the relator obtained from the circuit court an order for a mandamus to compel his recognition, which order is brought here by certiorari.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hooker

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hooker, J.

(after stating the facts). Upon the facts above stated, the order of the learned circuit judge was warranted. While there is not absolute harmony upon the subject, the weight of authority accords with his view of the case. The subject will be found discussed in Edwards v. U. S., 103 U. S. 471 ; Throop, Pub. Off. § 408 et seg.; 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 562r. The case of Edwards v. U. S., supra, arose over a Michigan office, and much that is there said is applicable here.

The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1907: 11936: 11939: 11950: 119072026peak 1907 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Royse v. Superior Court91 P. 4 (Wash. 1907)
  2. Tooele County v. De La Mare59 P.2d 1155 (Utah 1936)
  3. Warner v. Selectmen of Amherst95 N.E.2d 180 (Mass. 1950)
  4. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. O-855 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1939)

Most recent

  1. Warner v. Selectmen of Amherst95 N.E.2d 180 (Mass. 1950)
  2. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. O-855 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1939)
  3. Tooele County v. De La Mare59 P.2d 1155 (Utah 1936)
  4. State ex rel. Royse v. Superior Court91 P. 4 (Wash. 1907)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Edwards v. United States, 103 U.S. 471 (1881) 72

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list