Bedford v. Rice

58 N.H. 446
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedAugust 5, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 N.H. 446 (Bedford v. Rice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bedford v. Rice, 58 N.H. 446 (N.H. 1878).

Opinion

Allen, J.

The plaintiff town having chosen no health officers, the selectmen were, by law, such officers. Gen. St., c. 37, s. 4. In case of a vacancy in the office the selectmen could appoint. Gen. St., c. 39, s. 1. By appointing others to the office the selectmen resigned it, and a vacancy existed which was filled by the appointment.

It was sufficient that the persons appointed were health officers de facto. They were not parties to the suit, and the rights of the public and third persons were in question, and the title to the office could not be contested in this case. Tucker v. Aiken, 7 N. H. 113, 131; Blake v. Sturtevant, 12 N. H. 573; Carr v. Dodge, 40 N. H. 403, 409; Prescott v. Hayes, 42 N. H. 56, 58; State v. Carroll, 38 Conn. 449; Brown v. O’ Connell, 36 Conn. 432.

Exception overruled.

Stanley and Clark, JJ., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Wood v. Hadley
13 A. 643 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 N.H. 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bedford-v-rice-nh-1878.