« AnteriorContinuar »
TARSNEY V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF DETROIT.
BOARD OF EDUCATION-POWER TO CONTRACT.
Certiorari to, Wayne; Murphy, Brooke and Hosmer, JJ. Submitted February 19, 1907. (Calendar No. 21,998.) Decided March 5, 1907.
Mandamus by Timothy E. Tarsney to compel the board of education of the city of Detroit to audit a claim for services rendered. There was an order denying the writ, and relator brings certiorari. Affirmed.
"We next come to consider the question of the legal power of the board of education to enter into the contract upon which the relator relies. It will be remembered that the suits in which the relator's services were engaged were suits brought against the auditor general of the state, and were defended by the State through its proper officer, the attorney general. There is statutory provision empowering the State to employ further counsel if necessity arises; but nowhere is there any authority which permits an individual or a corporate body within the State to interfere in litigation wherein the State is a defendant. It is true, as argued by relator, that the citizens of Detroit (not the board of education) were vitally interested in the maintenance of the validity of the act in question in that case. The interest of the citizens of Detroit was not as residents of a particular school district, but as taxpayers having property liable to taxation within the corporate limits of the city of Detroit, which happened to be co-extensive with the limits of the school district under the control of the board of education. Should the validity of the act be sustained, the tax for school purposes within the city of Detroit would be less. Should the act be held invalid the taxes would be more. The board of education as such had absolutely no interest in the question at all. If it, as a board, had had an interest in, directly, still in our opinion it would not have the power to expend public moneys for the purposes indicated by the resolution, but, as we have pointed out, we believe the interest, indirect as it was, was not the interest of the board of education, but of the taxpayers of the city of Detroit."
The decision of the court below was clearly right, and stands affirmed.
SILVER V. HAMILTON TOWNSHIP BOARD,
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
ORGANIZATION OF DISTRICTS
The issuance of a writ of certiorari being largely discretionary, and not permissible to accomplish a palpable injustice, a writ issued to review the setting aside of the organization of a school district out of the territory of two others will be dismissed, where each of the three districts as so organized would be financially unable to support a school without imposing upon their residents a greater burden than they are able to bear.
Certiorari by Warren S. Silver, Joseph W. Allen and Robert Fisch, school board of district No. 5 of Hamilton township, to review an order of the township board of Hamilton, setting aside the action of the board of school inspectors in organizing said school district. Submitted October 29, 1906. (Calendar No. 21,889.) Writ dismissed November 13, 1906.
George J. Cummins, for appellants.
Per Curiam. A writ of certiorari brings before us for review the proceedings of defendant, setting aside the organization of the plaintiff school district. That district was organized June 9, 1906, by the school inspectors of Hamilton township, Clare county. It was composed of four sections, two of which were taken from district No. 2, and two from district No. 3 of Hamilton township. It appears from the return of defendant, which must be taken as true, that the property of the new district has an assessed valuation of $14,610, and that the effect of its organization will be to reduce the property in school district No. 2 from an assessed valuation of $29,760 to $24,020, and that of district No. 3 from $27,110 to $19,360. The organization was set aside by defendant because:
“With this territory detached, said districts (2 and 3) will be unable to maintain their schools as they should be, without imposing a greater burden upon the residents than they are able to bear, and the new district proposed to be formed .will be in the same condition, so that two good school districts are sacrificed for the sake of having three poor ones."
Plaintiff in certiorari asks us to reverse the action of the township board because of various irregularities in its proceedings. If plaintiff had a legal right to have a court review those proceedings, it is possible that its claim of error would be allowed. But it has no such right. At least, it has not that right in this case. As heretofore stated, this case is brought before us by writ of certiorari. That writ, the issuance of which is largely discretionary, will not be permitted to accomplish a palpable injustice. (West v. Parkinson, 130 Mich. 401, and authorities there cited), and it is clear for the reason stated by respondent that injustice would be accomplished by setting aside the order under consideration, and sustaining the organization of the plaintiff school district.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed.
STATE AND COUNTY CERTIFICATES
EIGHTH GRADE DIPLOMAS.
STATE EXAMINATIONS: MARCH AND AUGUST.
COUNTY EXAMINATIONS: JUNE, AUGUST, AND OCTOBER.
EIGHTH GRADE EXAMINATION: MAY.