Bedford v. Rice
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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 N.H. 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bedford-v-rice-nh-1878.