TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

School District No. 7 v. Currier

School District No. 7, in Danbury v. Moses Currier

Sch. Dist. No. 7 v. Currier, 45 N.H. 573 (1864)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1864
Judges
Doe
Citations
45 N.H. 573
Headnotes
A school district cannot, by vote, deprive the prudential committee of the power to provide board for teachers.
Summary
Assumpsit, submitted upon the following agreed statement of facts : At the annual meeting of said district in March, 1862, after the defendant had been elected and qualified as prudential committee for the ensuing year, and while he was taking part in the meeting, and without his dissent, it was voted to put up the board of the teachers for that year at auction, and it was struck off, at ninety-five cents per week, to one Sargent, a citizen of the district, and a responsible and proper person. The defendant hired his own daughter to teach the summer school, and refused to let the teachers board with Sargent, but boarded them himself, and took therefor, from the school money in his hands, one dollar and fifty cents per week. At the annual meeting of the district in March, 1863, the defendant made a report of his expenditures, which report the district refused to accept. This action was brought to recover the money retained by him for the board of the teachers.

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

Opinion of the Court — Doe

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

Doe, J.

Sec. 10, ch. 70, Rev. Stats., provides that it shall be the duty of the prudential committee to select and hire teachers for the district, provide for them board, furnish necessary fuel, &c. To provide board for the teachers was an official duty expressly imposed upon the defendant by statute, and the vote of the district relating to that subject was an act of usurpation and void as an attempt to repeal an act of the legislature. The concurrence of the defendant in such an attempt would be immaterial, and his refusal to comply with the vote of the district is not sufficient to sustain this action.

Case discharged.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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