The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1896-03-04
THE YERRINGToN CASE.
Reversed In the Supreme Court and New
Trial Ordered.

During the school years of 1891 4,
Estella Yer.ington, daughter of Chas. K.
Yerrington, wealthy Keller farmer
was an inmate of the family of Mr.. and
Mrs. George w. Rooms of this place.
Miss Yerrington was an exemplary
young lady, faithful student and a
regular attendant at the Paw Paw pub
| lie school.
When the bill for her tuition was pre-
sented To her father he refused TO pay
it, the board OF education brought suit
against him before Justice ODell and
, recovered the amount demanded, $20.57.
Yerrington refused to accept the judg-
ment of the justice and appealed To the
the circuit court On the trial the court
took the case from the jury aud direct
ed verdict for the defendant on the
ground that no legal or sufficient notice
had been given him that tuition wonld
be charged for the schooling of his
daughter.
The board was not satisfied with this
exposition of the law by Judge Buck
and being advised and convinced that
| the same was erroneous removed the
] case to the supreme court where it has
recently been decided in favor of the
district, every contention of the plain
J tiff being fully sustained.
The decision of this case has settled
some important points OF school law
that will be of interest To all the schools
OF the state, especially To the graded
schools where there is always Il large
patronage by non resident pupils.
Following is the opinion of the SUI
preme court in full:
THE plaintiff, 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 suffi.
cient notice that such tuition should
be charged
Counsel for the defendant contend
that the direction to find "a verdict was
warranted, not only by the reason Civ
en-, but by other reasons, viz:
"1st-That the defendant was not
shown to be a nonresident of the dis
trict.
"2nd-That resolution declaring
rates of tuition had not been legally
passed and recorded by the school
board.
"Srd-That defendant had no notice
of the adoption of such resolution.
"4th-That no agreement to pay such
tuition was shown.
"5th-That the remedy was by expul-
sion of the pupil, and not by action.
"'The record shows that a resolution
was passed and recorded, fixing rates
of tuition for non resident 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 defendan: was non resident of the
school district.
There is no evidence that notice of
the existence of the resolution fixing
rates of tuition was given to the de-
PENDANT.
1.-The defendants daughter attended
school during the school years of 1893
and 1894. during which period she lived
in the family of a Mrs. Rooms. She
was brought there by Mr.. Mosier,
who was shown 10 be county agent. A
week later, the defendant came and
made arrangements that she was to
live there and attend school, he to fur
nish her with clothes and To pay her
expenses aside from her board, which,
under arrangement made between Mr..
Mosier and Mrs. Koons, she was to
work for.
Apparently, this is case where a
child living in one district is sent to
another to board and go to school,
I'm Thompson vs. School District. %
Mich. 4S3, the Court held that before
any action could be maintained for tn
i,iOn of the defendants child, the dis
trict board must have fixed the rate OF
tuition for nonresident pupils, by res
olution duly recorded
There is nothing in the case that
warrants the assertion that it was there
held necessary TO notify the defendant
of the adoption or existence OF the res
olution, or that tuition would be charg-
Ell. There is in this case, however,
evidence that the defendant was noti-
fed twice by mail that tuition was due,
and two or three dollars was paid upon
il. This was paid to the board by Mr..
Titus 1t does not appear why he paid
it, We think IL was unnecessary that
that notice of the adoption of the reso-
luton. or of an intention to charge tn
ition, should be given. Every citizen
should know that nonresident pupils
have no right TO share the school priv.
ileges with resident children, except by
virtue of action taken by the board
under the statute, and until the board
has taken such action, and fixed the
rates of tuition, the nonresident pupil
has no right to attend. When such
pupil does attend, the proper action
having been taken by the board, there
is no reason for denying compensation
to the district, which the defendant
implicitly promised To pay when he sent
his daughter to the plaintiffs school
The adoption of the resolution and its
proper record removed any disability oi
the district TO sue which might other
wise have existed.
1--WE think there is no force in the
claim that its only remedy was by ex
pulsion Of the pupil.
4 THE Judgment is reversed and 8
new trial ordered"
, Messrs Titus & Mcneil are the at
torneys for the school district, and L. j
Cavanaugh for Yerrington.
, Couicif Proceedings.