Fellows v. Duncan
This text of 54 Mass. 332 (Fellows v. Duncan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The court are of opinion that the city of Lowell are not liable upon their answer as trustees. The city council had adopted a resolution, laying out a public way, and embracing, among other things, a resolution that a certain sum should be awarded and paid to Duncan for land taken. But no order had been delivered to the treasurer to pay the money. It was not a debt due, on which an action of debt would lie against the city. Something further remained to be done. Should the party, to whom damages are awarded, be required to apply for a mandamus, or other process, requiring the proper officers of the city to draw an order or take any other step for the payment of his damages, it would be open for them to show that the money was not due to Duncan, but to [335]*335other parties. This is the more important, since they say, in their answer, that they have now discovered that the whole of the money is not payable to Duncan. But the ground of discharge is, that at the time of the service of the writ there was no debt due from the city to Duncan, the principal defendant.
Trustees discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
54 Mass. 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fellows-v-duncan-mass-1847.