Reed v. Inhabitants of Acton

120 Mass. 130, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 130
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 2, 1876·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

Ames, J.

The only question raised by this bill of exceptions is whether the report and location were filed in the office of the town clerk in the manner required by Gen. Sts. c. 43, § 65. The clerk’s office may be his dwelling house, and undoubtedly is so in many of the towns in the Commonwealth. A document may properly be said to be filed with a town clerk when it is placed in his official custody, and is deposited in the place where his [132]*132ofiv ,al records and papers are usually kept. There is nothing in th*' statute requiring his constant attendance, and if the paper i« this case was in his custody, ready for the signature of the selectmen, and if a majority of the board called at bis house, signed the paper, and returned it to its place of deposit in the safe, more than seven days before the town meeting, it was a sufficient compliance with the statute. It is immaterial that he was absent when they called. His wife might lawfully act as his agent for the purpose of exhibiting the paper, and restoring it when signed to its place of deposit. It is a convenient and proper practice to indorse a memorandum of the date upon the paper, but the statute does not make it indispensable.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Reed v. Inhabitants of Acton, 120 Mass. 130, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 130 (Mass. 1876).

120 Mass. 130 (Reed v. Inhabitants of Acton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Textile Banking Co. v. Melrose Organ Studios, Inc.
38 Mass. App. Dec. 7 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1967)
Grace v. Wilson
199 Misc. 738 (New York Supreme Court, 1950)
Hobart-Farrell Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Klayman
19 N.E.2d 805 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Edwin Pratt's Sons' Co. v. Schafer
7 N.E.2d 901 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1937)
In re the Board of Supervisors
145 Misc. 353 (New York County Courts, 1932)
Inhabitants of Greenfield v. Burnham
145 N.E. 306 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Albany Builders' Supply Co. v. Eastern Bridge & Structural Co.
139 N.E. 565 (New York Court of Appeals, 1923)
Powers Regulator Co. v. Taylor
114 N.E. 356 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
O'Brien v. Schneider
129 N.W. 1002 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1911)
Burkleo v. Town Board
108 Minn. 224 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1909)
Cowie v. Means
39 Colo. 1 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1906)
Hilts v. Hilts
72 P. 697 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1903)
Clemens Electrical Manufacturing Co. v. Walton
47 N.E. 102 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Mutual Life Ins. v. Phinney
76 F. 617 (Ninth Circuit, 1896)
Inhabitants of Westhampton v. Searle
127 Mass. 502 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)