108 Mich. 414 | Mich. | 1896
The plaintiff, a school district, brought an action against the father of a nonresident infant pupil, for tuition, and appeals from an adverse verdict, directed by the circuit judge, upon the ground that it had “failed to prove that the defendant had any legal or sufficient notice that such tuition would be charged.” Counsel for the defendant contends that the direction to find a verdict was warranted, not only by the reason given, but by other reasons, viz.:
1. That the defendant was not shown to be a nonresident of the district.
2. That a resolution, declaring rates of tuition, had not been legally passed and recorded by the school board.
8. That the defendant had no notice of the adoption of such resolution.
4. That no agreement to pay such tuition was shown.
5. That the remedy was by expulsion of the pupil, and not by action.
The record shows that a resolution was passed and recorded, fixing rates of tuition for nonresident pupils. As the brief does not point out wherein this resolution or record was defective, we have no occasion to discuss it.
There was testimony showing that the defendant was a nonresident of the school district.
There is no evidence that notice of the existence of the resolution fixing rates of tuition was given to the defendant. The defendant’s daughter attended school during the school years of 1893 and 1894, during which period she lived in the family of a Mrs. Koons. She was brought there by a Mr. Mosier, who was shown to be “ county agent.” A week later the defendant came, and made arrangement by which she was to live there, and attend school, he to furnish her with clothes and to pay her expenses, aside from her board, which, under arrangement made between Mosier and Mrs. Koons, she was to work for.
Apparently, this is a case where a child living in one district is sent to another to “board and go to school.”
We think there is no force in the claim that its only remedy was by expulsion of the pupil.
The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered.