Nolan v. Boston Firemen's Relief Fund

128 N.E. 715, 236 Mass. 420, 1920 Mass. LEXIS 867
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 19, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 128 N.E. 715 (Nolan v. Boston Firemen's Relief Fund) 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
Nolan v. Boston Firemen's Relief Fund, 128 N.E. 715, 236 Mass. 420, 1920 Mass. LEXIS 867 (Mass. 1920).

Opinion

By the Court.

This petition for a writ of mandamus, although not carefully drawn, sets out membership by the petitioners in the fire department of the city of Boston, right by reason thereof to vote for twelve members of that department, who, together with the fire commissioner of that department, constitute the corporation established by St. 1909, c. 308, as amended by St. 1911, c. 134, and denial by the respondent of that right. The facts [422]*422found support every one of these allegations. Although the petitioners are not active members of the respondent corporation, their franchise to vote for twelve of such members is indubitably secured to them and to every other member of the fire department of the city of Boston by the express terms of the statutes heretofore cited. The petitioners were excused from making an express demand upon the respondent because the circumstances show that it would have been manifestly futile. No justification whatever is shown for refusal by the respondent to afford to the petitioners every facility for voting provided for other members of the department. This is an appropriate case for the issuance of the writ of mandamus. It is too clear for discussion that the case in this aspect is covered in every particular by the decision in Fickett v. Boston Firemen’s Relief Fund, 220 Mass. 319. It has been found that the petitioners have not been refused by the respondent any pecuniary relief to which they were entitled; hence they show no present right to aid of the court in that respect.

Writ to issue.

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

Related

Doten v. City of Brockton
105 N.E.2d 223 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1952)
State Highway Commission v. McGowen Ex Rel. Hinds County
23 So. 2d 893 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1945)
McKenney v. Dobbratz
51 N.E.2d 770 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Cape Cod Steamship Co. v. Selectmen of Provincetown
3 N.E.2d 244 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Rose v. Boston Firemen's Relief Fund
143 N.E. 505 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Elliott v. Fire Commissioner
139 N.E. 523 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 N.E. 715, 236 Mass. 420, 1920 Mass. LEXIS 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nolan-v-boston-firemens-relief-fund-mass-1920.