Mayor of Lowell v. Dadman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mayor of Lowell v. Dadman

191 Mass. 370, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1283

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 3, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 191 Mass. 370 (Mayor of Lowell v. Dadman) 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

Mayor of Lowell v. Dadman, 191 Mass. 370, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1283 (Mass. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Lathrop, J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari by the mayor of the city of Lowell against the city clerk of that city, seeking to have a certain joint order of the city council of that city, redistricting the city into a new division of wards, declared illegal. The case was heard by a single justice of this court, who ordered a decree to be entered dismissing the petition, and, at the request of the petitioner, reported the case for our consideration.

No question is. made as to the proper passing of the order by the city council. The mayor attempted to veto the order, and the only question is whether the veto had any force or effect. The vetó in question was dated April 13, 1905, and was addressed to the city council of the city of Lowell, and signed by the mayor. It was in these words : “ I herewith return without my approval joint order entitled 1 Providing for a new division of the territory of the city of Lowell into wards.’ ” By the B. L. c. 26, § 9, the mayor was required, if he disapproved of the order, to return it, “ with his objections in writing.” The so called veto contained no statement of objections, and was of no effect.

The language of the Constitution of the United States and of this Commonwealth is the same in substance as that in the statute above cited. U. S. Const, art. 1, § 7. Mass. Const, c. 1, § 1, art. 2. The reason why it is necessary that the objections [371]*371should be stated is plain. It is that the body passing the order should have an opportunity to weigh and consider the objections, and determine whether it is right or wrong. Harpending v. Haight, 39 Cal. 189, 199. Truesdale v. Rochester, 33 Hun, 574, 576. People v. Bowen, 21 N. Y. 517, 521 et seq.

J. W. McEvoy, for the plaintiff. J. G. Hill, for the defendants.

In this country the absolute veto is unknown; the qualified or limited veto is all an executive has. Harpending v. Haight, 39 Cal. 189, 201. People v. Board of Councilmen, 20 N. Y. Supp. 51, 52. Cooley, Const. Lim. (6th ed.) 184.

The attempt on the part of the mayor to return an absolute veto was of no effect.

Petition denied.

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

Lathrop, J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari by the mayor of the city of Lowell against the city clerk of that city, seeking to have a certain joint order of the city council of that city, redistricting the city into a new division of wards, declared illegal. The case was heard by a single justice of this court, who ordered a decree to be entered dismissing the petition, and, at the request of the petitioner, reported the case for our consideration.

No question is. made as to the proper passing of the order by the city council. The mayor attempted to veto the order, and the only question is whether the veto had any force or effect. The vetó in question was dated April 13, 1905, and was addressed to the city council of the city of Lowell, and signed by the mayor. It was in these words : “ I herewith return without my approval joint order entitled 1 Providing for a new division of the territory of the city of Lowell into wards.’ ” By the B. L. c. 26, § 9, the mayor was required, if he disapproved of the order, to return it, “ with his objections in writing.” The so called veto contained no statement of objections, and was of no effect.

The language of the Constitution of the United States and of this Commonwealth is the same in substance as that in the statute above cited. U. S. Const, art. 1, § 7. Mass. Const, c. 1, § 1, art. 2. The reason why it is necessary that the objections [371]*371should be stated is plain. It is that the body passing the order should have an opportunity to weigh and consider the objections, and determine whether it is right or wrong. Harpending v. Haight, 39 Cal. 189, 199. Truesdale v. Rochester, 33 Hun, 574, 576. People v. Bowen, 21 N. Y. 517, 521 et seq.

J. W. McEvoy, for the plaintiff. J. G. Hill, for the defendants.

In this country the absolute veto is unknown; the qualified or limited veto is all an executive has. Harpending v. Haight, 39 Cal. 189, 201. People v. Board of Councilmen, 20 N. Y. Supp. 51, 52. Cooley, Const. Lim. (6th ed.) 184.

The attempt on the part of the mayor to return an absolute veto was of no effect.

Petition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 Mass. 370, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayor-of-lowell-v-dadman-mass-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack