Case Name: WHITE v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, FRACTIONAL, NOTTAWA AND LOCKPORT TOWNSHIPS
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1926-06-07
Citations: 235 Mich. 338
Docket Number: Docket No. 37
Parties: WHITE v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, FRACTIONAL, NOTTAWA AND LOCKPORT TOWNSHIPS.
Judges: Bird, C. J., and Sharpe, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 235
Pages: 338–339

Head Matter:
WHITE v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, FRACTIONAL, NOTTAWA AND LOCKPORT TOWNSHIPS.
Schools and School Districts — Partner a Property Owner Although Partnership Property Assessed to Other Partner.
One who owned with his partner property assessed to the latter for school taxes in the district had the qualification as a property owner required by section 17, Act No. 301, Pub. Acts 1921, to vote at an election to bond the district.
Case-made from St. Joseph; Johnson (Clayton C.), J.
Submitted April 7, 1926.
(Docket No. 37.)
Decided June 7, 1926.
Rehearing denied October 4, 1926.
Quo warranto proceedings by Frederick M. White against school district No. 1, fractional, of.Nottawa and Lockport townships to test the validity of an election. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Frederick M. White, in pro. per.
R. J. Wade (James T. Sloan, of counsel), for appellee.
Schools and School Districts, 35 Cyc. p. 990.

Opinion:
Clark, J.
The electors of defendant school district determined to bond by a vote of 125 to 124. The election was contested on quo warranto. A judgment for defendant is reviewed on case-made.
Plaintiff's only contention is that a voter, one Russell A. Butler, "was not a legal voter because he did not have the property qualification" required by section 17, Act No. 301, Pub. Acts 1921 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1922, § 5664), namely, quoting, "who owns property which is assessed for school taxes in the district."
Butler was member of a copartnership trading as S. R. Butler & Son. They filed, in 1917, with the county clerk a certificate of copartnership. The partnership owned property assessed for school taxes in the district at, and for years prior to, the time in question. On the tax roll the property was assessed to S. R. Butler. But Russell A. Butler owned with his partner property "which is assessed" for school taxes in the district, therefore he had the required qualification. See King v. Board of Canvassers, 37 R. I. 254 (92 Atl. 569); Saxton v. Mayor, etc., of Delaware City (Del. Ch.), 88 Atl. 605.
Judgment affirmed.
Bird, C. J., and Sharpe, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.