Case ID: mich-np-r_2/html/0058-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Christiañcy J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fractional School District No. 4. of Macomb and Chesterfield vs. Charles A. Mallory.
    Order of School Directors upon Treasurer hold void, not having been drawn upon Assessor and countersigned by Moderator.
    Error to Macomb Circuit.
   Opinion by

Christiañcy J.

Mallory brought assumpsit in a Justice’s Court against the district on the following'órder:,

“ Treasurer of the Township of Macomb, County of Macomb :
On'the first day of February, 1866, pay Adams, Blackman & Lyon, or bearer, the sum of thirty-three dollars out of the expense fund belonging to District No. 4, fractional townships of Macomb and Chesterfield, for teacher’s daily register, school district record, and other school blanks purchased by the undersigned for the use of Said district, with use at ten per cent, from date until paid.
WILLIAM GAMBEE, Director.
Countersigned,
LANCEY WESTON, Moderator.”

The funds in^tke hands of the Township Treasurer, upon which the order was drawn, were raised by tax forthe district and collected by the Treasurer. The defendant on the trial before the Justice,objected to the reception of the order, but the objection was overruled and the'plaintiff recovered judgment for the amount of the 'order, with interest and costs. The judgment was removed to the Circuit aud affirmed. Thence it was taken to the Supreme Court.

Held, That the order was void upon its face. The Director had no power to draw any order on the township Treasurer for any money of the district in his hands payable to any*one but the district Assessor, who is the disbursing officer, of the district. Debts of and claims against the district (like that indicated by this order,) are to be paid by orders drawn by the director upon the Assessor and couutérsigned by the Moderator. C. L., Secs. 2272, 2275 and 2296.— These sections were in force when this question came up and the ' amendmentóf 1869, (p. 183., note.) renders the matter still more clear.

Judgment below reversed, and defendant in error to recover costs in all the courts.