dollars, it shall be apportioned among the several school districts of such township or city in proportion to the number of children therein of school age." The apportionment must be based upon the whole number of children of school age residing in the township, and include all districts whether lying wholly or partly in such township. In case of a fractional district in which the school-house is situated in a different township, the money belonging to such district must be paid over to the treasurer of the township in which the school-house is situated, and by that treasurer paid to the district, in the same way as in the case of the one-mill and other taxes.

By Act No. 214, Public Acts of 1889, it is provided that if any money remains in this fund in any city and any township or part of township adjoining thereto (the same being within one county) "after the payment of the orders payable out of the same and the amount of said money shall exceed the sum of two hundred dollars, the sum in excess of two hundred dollars shall be apportioned by said county treasurer to the said township or part of township and said city in proportion to the amount contributed to said fund during the preceding year, and the amount so apportioned to any said township or part of township, or said city, shall be respectively apportioned among the several school districts of said township or part of township and said city, in proportion to the number of children therein of school age."

9

APPENDIX A.

DIGEST OF DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

I.

TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SCHOOL INSPECTORS.

1. The statutory notice of meetings by inspectors must be given, stating the object of the meeting. And no business at a meeting inconsistent with the notice is lawful. Passage v. School Inspectors of Williamstown, 19 Mich., 330.

12. The township board of school inspectors have no power to dissolve a school district erected by special act of the legislature, and to set back the territory into the districts from which it was taken. School District v. Dean, 17 Mich., 223.

3. On the erection and organization of a new township, the inspectors of such township may sever its territory from the school district within which it was formerly embraced, and there is no general provision of law which charges the property within the new township with the obligation to pay any debts created for school purposes, which existed at the time of the erection of the new township. School District No. 1 of Portage v. Ryan, 19 Mich., 203.

14. Mandamus will not be granted to disturb an apportionment made by the township board of school inspectors between different districts, acquiesced in for several years, and which if the court could change it has no proof that it ought to. School District No. 3 of Riverside Township v. the Township of Riverside, 67 Mich., 404.

II.

APPEALS FROM ACTION OF SCHOOL INSPECTORS.

¶5. Under the statute providing for appeals from the board of school inspectors to the township board, the approval of the appeal bond is essential to complete an appeal; and the fact that the bond was presented to the clerk of the board of inspectors, who refused to approve it because it was not witnessed, even though the objection be a frivolous one, made in bad faith and for vexation, will not render the bond sufficient without an approval, since,

under the statute, it may be approved also by any justice of the township. Clement v. Everest, 29 Mich., 19.

6. The validity of the action of school inspectors in changing the boundaries of school districts is not affected by the fact that the inspectors were interested parties as taxpayers and residents; the disabling doctrine has no application to those administrative acts which are public, and not with or between private parties. Ibid.

17. The regularity of the action of school inspectors in creating or changing school districts will not be inquired into in a collateral proceeding; their action is the exercise of a public discretionary power, which can only be reviewed, if at all, by some direct appellate process authorized by law and operating upon the proceedings themselves to affirm, reverse or change them. Ibid.

18. Parties appealing under the statute from the action of school inspectors in arranging school districts, to the township board, thereby waive those questions which require judicial review and submit themselves to the discretion of that body; and a certiorari to the township board does not open for review the doings of the inspectors. Brody v. Township Board of Penn, 32 Mich., 272.

9. It was never intended that a court should exercise any of these powers of discretionary administration; and when, on such appeal, the township board acted within its jurisdiction, its discretion cannot be reviewed by the courts; and if it did not, and its acts were void, then under the statute the action of the inspectors, after ten days, is equally intact and beyond disturbance. Ibid.

10. Where, however, the township board, acting without authority, reverses the action of the inspectors, their doings may be overturned; but an order of the board affirming the action of the inspectors, whether properly or improperly, only leaves such action where it would have been without such interference. Ibid.

11. A township board has jurisdiction of appeals from decisions of the board of school inspectors fixing the amount to be paid by an old school district to a new one where the latter comprises part of the same territory, and the former retains the school property. School District No. Five of Pine Township v. Wilcox, 48 Mich., 404.

III.

TOWNSHIP BOARD.

12. An application to the township board to remove the moderator of a school district, on the ground that he presistently refuses to countersign an order drawn by the director of the district on the assessor, involves an inquiry, in which the payee named in the order is an interested party. Stockwell v. Township Board of White Lake, 22 Mich., 341.

T13. A proceeding before the township board to remove an officer of a school district, is in the nature of a judicial investigation; and when one of the board is interested in the subject of the complaint, and the presence of such member is essential to the quorum, the proceedings are void. Ibid.

14. When either of the members of the township board is interested in the subject for consideration, he is not "competent or able to act," in the

sense of the statute; and such incompetency will justify the calling in of one of the remaining justices. Ibid.

15. Every special tribunal appointed by law is subject to the maxim that no person can sit in any cause in which he is a party, or in which he is interested. Ibid.

16. The removal of a school district assessor by the township board is reviewable on certiorari. Merrick v. Township Board, 41 Mich., 630.

17. Costs awarded by the supreme court in a proceeding by certiorari against persons composing a township board, to review their official acts, are to be collected like township charges, and not by execution against the officers personally. Stockwell v. Township Board of White Lake, 22 Mich., 341.

18. Proceedings by a township board to remove a school director are not invalidated by the fact that it did not meet to agree on the notice under which the proceedings were taken. Wenzell v. Township Board of Dorr, 49

Mich., 25.

19. The primary school law does not authorize the township board to remove the moderator for hiring her husband to teach the district school and agreeing to pay him more than is necessary to secure a better teacher. Hazen v. Town Board of Akron, 48 Mich., 188.

20. In providing that the school director shall keep the necessary schoolhouse furniture in due order and condition, and that his expenses shall be subsequently audited and paid, it is not intended that money must be put into his hands beforehand. Township Board of Hamtramck v. Holihan, 46 Mich., 127.

21. The township board is exclusive judge of the facts on which it is authorized to remove a school director, and its proceedings can only be reviewed by the circuit and supreme courts on questions of law. Ibid.

22. Proceedings by a township board to remove a school director cannot properly be taken until the action of the proper authorities has been invoked by complaint of some definite violation of duty; but where the plaintiff admits the charges set up against him, and expressly desires the board to act on them without farther delay, he cannot afterwards complain that they did so. Geddes v. Township of Thomastown, 46 Mich., 316.

23. The action of a town board in removing a school director is final, unless speedily brought up for review. Ibid.

24. The willful refusal of a school director to sign a contract made with a teacher, or to accept and file it, or draw orders for the teacher's pay while it is pending, and his obstinate neglect to furnish necessary school-house supplies, may be taken into account in proceedings for his removal. Ibid.

IV.

ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

25. There should be some special and extraordinary reason to justify interference by quo warranto with the organization of a school district, as the statutes provide a speedier remedy by an appeal from the inspectors to the township board. Lord v. Every, 38 Mich., 405.