Eaton v. Bragg

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Eaton v. Bragg

77 A.2d 589, 96 N.H. 407, 1951 N.H. LEXIS 214

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJanuary 2, 1951

Docket3966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 A.2d 589 (Eaton v. Bragg) 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

Eaton v. Bragg, 77 A.2d 589, 96 N.H. 407, 1951 N.H. LEXIS 214 (N.H. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Blandin, J.

The basic question is whether the vote of the town to merge the offices of tax collector and town clerk is legal. We believe it is not. Towns have only the powers which the state grants them. Amyot v. Caron, 88 N. H. 394, and authorities cited; 62 C. J. S., Municipal Corporations, ss. 107, 115. While there is nothing to prevent the election of the same person to the separate offices of tax collector and town clerk, neither our Constitution nor statutes indicate that authority, has been given to towns to merge these two offices which the Legislature has kept separate and for which it has prescribed widely different functions. R. L., c. 59, s. 16, provides for the removal of a tax collector by the selectmen; s. 34 for his removal by the Tax Commission and section 44 states that no person shall “be compelled to serve as collector in any case.” No such provisions appear regarding town clerks. R. L., c. 59, s. 41, provides that various officers including tax collectors “shall severally perform the duties prescribed by law.” (Italics supplied). It seems unnecessary to multiply examples of the radical distinctions established by law between the two positions.

In 1947 when it was deemed proper to permit a merger of the offices of tax collector and town manager it was considered necessary to pass a special statute authorizing such action. Laws 1947, c. 236, s. 3. Had it been thought this power existed this law would have been unnecessary.

*409 It appears the town seeks to alter substantially the nature of each office under consideration here by adding to it the duties of the other— duties so onerous in the case of the tax collector that the Legislature prescribed that no one should assume them against his will. This cannot be done. Cf. Coleman v. District, 87 N. H. 465, 470. Neither in R. L., c. 59, s. 41, permitting a town to choose officers “necessary for managing its affairs,” or elsewhere is there authority to create in effect new offices in place of those designated by statute. See Attorney General v. Lowell, 67 N. H. 198, 199. It appears the attempted merger is invalid and the order is

Judgment for the plaintiff.

All concurred.

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

Blandin, J.

The basic question is whether the vote of the town to merge the offices of tax collector and town clerk is legal. We believe it is not. Towns have only the powers which the state grants them. Amyot v. Caron, 88 N. H. 394, and authorities cited; 62 C. J. S., Municipal Corporations, ss. 107, 115. While there is nothing to prevent the election of the same person to the separate offices of tax collector and town clerk, neither our Constitution nor statutes indicate that authority, has been given to towns to merge these two offices which the Legislature has kept separate and for which it has prescribed widely different functions. R. L., c. 59, s. 16, provides for the removal of a tax collector by the selectmen; s. 34 for his removal by the Tax Commission and section 44 states that no person shall “be compelled to serve as collector in any case.” No such provisions appear regarding town clerks. R. L., c. 59, s. 41, provides that various officers including tax collectors “shall severally perform the duties prescribed by law.” (Italics supplied). It seems unnecessary to multiply examples of the radical distinctions established by law between the two positions.

In 1947 when it was deemed proper to permit a merger of the offices of tax collector and town manager it was considered necessary to pass a special statute authorizing such action. Laws 1947, c. 236, s. 3. Had it been thought this power existed this law would have been unnecessary.

*409 It appears the town seeks to alter substantially the nature of each office under consideration here by adding to it the duties of the other— duties so onerous in the case of the tax collector that the Legislature prescribed that no one should assume them against his will. This cannot be done. Cf. Coleman v. District, 87 N. H. 465, 470. Neither in R. L., c. 59, s. 41, permitting a town to choose officers “necessary for managing its affairs,” or elsewhere is there authority to create in effect new offices in place of those designated by statute. See Attorney General v. Lowell, 67 N. H. 198, 199. It appears the attempted merger is invalid and the order is

Judgment for the plaintiff.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.2d 589, 96 N.H. 407, 1951 N.H. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eaton-v-bragg-nh-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack