Horton v. Newell

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Horton v. Newell

23 A. 910, 17 R.I. 571, 1892 R.I. LEXIS 30

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 2, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A. 910 (Horton v. Newell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horton v. Newell, 23 A. 910, 17 R.I. 571, 1892 R.I. LEXIS 30 (R.I. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A municipal corporation is not liable for the acts of its officers unless previously authorized or subsequently ratified by it, or unless done in good faith in pursuance of a general authority to act for the city in the matter to which they relate. Donnelly v. Tripp, 12 R. I. 97, 98. The declaration does not allege that the city of Pawtucket authorized the suit by Newell in his capacity as tax collector, complained of as malicious, or that it has ever ratified the bringing of the suit. If it was maliciously brought by Newell, it was not brought in good faith, which is essential to render the city liable as for an act done in pursuance of a general authority to act for it, under the rule stated above. The demurrer was, therefore, properly sustained.

We presume that Newell, in bringing the suit, acted, not under authority from the city of Pawtucket, but in pursuance of the statutory authority conferred on him as tax collector by Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 44, § 26. If so, it is difficult to see how the city of Pawtucket is liable.

Exceptions overruled, and judgment of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

A municipal corporation is not liable for the acts of its officers unless previously authorized or subsequently ratified by it, or unless done in good faith in pursuance of a general authority to act for the city in the matter to which they relate. Donnelly v. Tripp, 12 R. I. 97, 98. The declaration does not allege that the city of Pawtucket authorized the suit by Newell in his capacity as tax collector, complained of as malicious, or that it has ever ratified the bringing of the suit. If it was maliciously brought by Newell, it was not brought in good faith, which is essential to render the city liable as for an act done in pursuance of a general authority to act for it, under the rule stated above. The demurrer was, therefore, properly sustained.

We presume that Newell, in bringing the suit, acted, not under authority from the city of Pawtucket, but in pursuance of the statutory authority conferred on him as tax collector by Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 44, § 26. If so, it is difficult to see how the city of Pawtucket is liable.

Exceptions overruled, and judgment of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 910, 17 R.I. 571, 1892 R.I. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-newell-ri-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack