Inhabitants of Arlington v. Peirce

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Inhabitants of Arlington v. Peirce

122 Mass. 270, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 114

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 7, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 122 Mass. 270 (Inhabitants of Arlington v. Peirce) 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.

Bluebook

Inhabitants of Arlington v. Peirce, 122 Mass. 270, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 114 (Mass. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The defendant was not a public officer appointed or elected under the statutes of the Commonwealth; but was one of a committee appointed by the town to execute the powers conferred upon the.town by the Sts. of 1870, e. 93, and 1871, c. 245, for supplying its inhabitants with pure water It was clearly within the power of the town to compensate the members of this committee for their services. The intention and agreement of the town to make such compensation might he shown either by previous vote, or by subsequent action ratifying and confirming the doings of the committee or of other agents or officers of the town. Stimpson v. Malden, 109 Mass. 313. Parks v. Waltham, 120 Mass. 160. Emerson v. Newbury, 13 Pick. 377. Crawshaw v. Roxbury, 7 Gray, 374.

It is unnecessary to consider whether the votes of the town in 1871 and 1872, appointing this committee and fixing its duties and powers, authorized the committee to pay any compensation to its own members ; because the amounts paid to the defendant and other members of the committee for their services clearly appeared in a report of the committee, which was accepted by the town at a meeting in June, 1873, under an appropriate article in the warrant, and also in the report of the town treasurer, approved by the report of the auditors, both of which were accepted by the town at the annual meeting in March, 1874; and such acceptance, with the knowledge afforded by the reports themselves of all material facts, was a conclusive approval and [273]*273ratification of the acts thereby appearing to have been done in behalf of the town, and could not afterwards be rescinded or the amount paid to the defendant recovered back. Niles v. Patch, 13 Gray, 254. Hunneman v. Grafton, 10 Met. 454. Hall v. Holden, 116 Mass. 172. Greenland v. Weeks, 49 N. H. 472.

The case wholly differs from those, on which the plaintiff relies, in which the acceptance of the report made by a committee appointed to inquire into facts, and which does not recite or recommend any action in behalf of the town, has been held to be no evidence against the town of the truth of the facts reported. Dudley v. Weston, 1 Met. 477. Collins v. Dorchester, 6 Cush. 396. Wheeler v. Framingham, 12 Cush. 287.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Gray, C. J.

The defendant was not a public officer appointed or elected under the statutes of the Commonwealth; but was one of a committee appointed by the town to execute the powers conferred upon the.town by the Sts. of 1870, e. 93, and 1871, c. 245, for supplying its inhabitants with pure water It was clearly within the power of the town to compensate the members of this committee for their services. The intention and agreement of the town to make such compensation might he shown either by previous vote, or by subsequent action ratifying and confirming the doings of the committee or of other agents or officers of the town. Stimpson v. Malden, 109 Mass. 313. Parks v. Waltham, 120 Mass. 160. Emerson v. Newbury, 13 Pick. 377. Crawshaw v. Roxbury, 7 Gray, 374.

It is unnecessary to consider whether the votes of the town in 1871 and 1872, appointing this committee and fixing its duties and powers, authorized the committee to pay any compensation to its own members ; because the amounts paid to the defendant and other members of the committee for their services clearly appeared in a report of the committee, which was accepted by the town at a meeting in June, 1873, under an appropriate article in the warrant, and also in the report of the town treasurer, approved by the report of the auditors, both of which were accepted by the town at the annual meeting in March, 1874; and such acceptance, with the knowledge afforded by the reports themselves of all material facts, was a conclusive approval and [273]*273ratification of the acts thereby appearing to have been done in behalf of the town, and could not afterwards be rescinded or the amount paid to the defendant recovered back. Niles v. Patch, 13 Gray, 254. Hunneman v. Grafton, 10 Met. 454. Hall v. Holden, 116 Mass. 172. Greenland v. Weeks, 49 N. H. 472.

The case wholly differs from those, on which the plaintiff relies, in which the acceptance of the report made by a committee appointed to inquire into facts, and which does not recite or recommend any action in behalf of the town, has been held to be no evidence against the town of the truth of the facts reported. Dudley v. Weston, 1 Met. 477. Collins v. Dorchester, 6 Cush. 396. Wheeler v. Framingham, 12 Cush. 287.

Judgment on the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 Mass. 270, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inhabitants-of-arlington-v-peirce-mass-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack