bc oontlnuedas a member thereof. It hes been stated that the rules o.feduoatlonal ~institutions suuuortedin whole or in part by auurop- rlationsfmm the public treasuryare viewed sanewhatm&n% oritl- oallybythe courts than those of private Institutions."(Undsra acorn oura) , :. In otherwords, it seems the onlydistlnctionmadebetweenprivate lnstita&lonsend public instltutioneis thatthe.rulesof public instltu- tione ars vlewsd sawwhatmore orltioallyby the aourlsthan those of prl- rate lnstitutlona.This ieindeedtrueinT~,wheretbersasonablerales aud regulationspmmulgated.by the Board of Regents of the Universityof T- sre vlevedwlth the earnsforce and effectas legislativeenaoimsnt. Foley Y. Benedict,lnfra.
In Anthonfv. SyraouseUnlvBrsity,231N. Y. Supp. 475, the court held thatSyracuseUniversitywas a quasi-publicinstltutlon~ andabranch of the educati~lsywtem of the State of New York. In disuussingthe re- lationshipbetweepa studs& and that institution,the court saidr
*UllderordinaryoLrclrmetaPcesaaaacrnditLoaaa~~on / matrloulatingatauniversity establishesa contractualre- latlonshlp,under which upon aanplisncewith all reasonable regulationsas to scholasticstanding,attendance,deportment, paymentof tuition,and otherwise,he is entitledto pursue his salsatedcourse to completionand rsaelve the degree or certificateawardedfor the successfulccnuplstion of suah degree." - .
HonorableR. J. Parten,Page 8 (o-2106)
Again, lnTate ~.NorthPaoiflo College (SupremeCourt of Oregon, 1914) 140 Pea. 743, the oourt saldr
"The lssueaoeby a collegeof aoatalogue statingthe re- quirementsfor gradaationand for the conferringon candidates of the degree of Dootor of DentalMedicine,aud the entrsnoe, matrlaulation,end attendanceof sessionsby a studentwith knowledgeof those requirementsconstitutesaaontractby the student to oomplywith the rsqulremsnts, andby the collegs to issue a dlplaeLaon ocmpllancewith the requirements."
InNeidenaeyer Y. Curatorsof the Universityof Missouri,supra, the catalogueof tie stateuniversityfor the yssrs 18$?-23% containedthe statementthat applicantsfor admlsslonto the classesof the law depart- mentvere mqd.rea to pay $50.00 for the~first*ear and $40.00 for each sucoesslw year. The plaintiffin l8g2paid$5O.OOandwas admittedto the Junioralma. The oatalogueforthesoholasticyear18g3-1894statedthat all law studentswere requiredto pay$5O,OOper year. The plaintiffin I.893tendered$40.00 for admissionto the senior class,was rejectedand paid the $5O.OOdemandedunderprotest. It was held that the catalogueof the stateuniversltyoonstltutedanofferand theplaintiffbyregistering acceptedthe offer. The aourt then stated:
Yifter the-propo0ltloncontainedin the oatalogueof l&2- 1893hadbesnacceptedbyple.intlff,and the ri&ts of tie plain- tlffhad therebybecome fixed, itwas notwithin the power of the defendantsto alter or abridgethose rightsby withdrawingthe proposifionandpubllahingthatoantainadln the aatalogueof I.893 and 1894. And whether the plaintiffhad notice of that fact be- fore he appliedfor admissionto the seoond year.6course or not, it se- to UB, oan make no dlfferenoe. The propositionoontained in the catalogueof 18p2-1893was that of the state,and,when accepted,gwd faith and fair deallugrequirsdIt should be carried out on the part of the state to the letter. Ansnlightenedend progressivestate can ill afford to triflewith the ri&ts of the citizensin the slightestdegree. The court erred inrejeotingthe theory oontainedln the plaintiff'sinstruotlouaud in adopting that oontaiuedin those of the defendant's,'
In Foley Y. Benedict,et al. (Corn. App. 1932) 122 Tex. 193, 55 S.W. (2d)805, the courtwas 00~ernedwit.b thevalldityof aregulation idoptedby the Board of Regents of ,theUnlversi~ of Texas requiringa certainstandardof proficisncyin order for a studentto stay in the mediaalbranoh of the University. Re-admissiouwas refusedthe student afterhehad failed tomaintain audmeetthe standardsrequired. The C~ission of Appeals quotedwith approvalgertainpassagesfrom the opinionof State Y. White, 82 Ind. 278, 42 Am. Rep. 496, whloh reoognised that certainaontraotualrights exist between a studentand a state Supportedunlverslty,held the regulationof the Board of Regents ti be a reasonableone, and in