Steele v. Municipal Signal Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Steele v. Municipal Signal Co.

35 N.E. 105, 160 Mass. 36, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 13

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 21, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 35 N.E. 105 (Steele v. Municipal Signal Co.) 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

Steele v. Municipal Signal Co., 35 N.E. 105, 160 Mass. 36, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 13 (Mass. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Allen, J.

This suit is not brought under Pub. Sts. e. 27, § 129, no such vote having been passed as is there contemplated. But the plaintiffs seek to maintain their bill under the general equity jurisdiction of the court. A difference of opinion has existed elsewhere whether it is within the general scope of the jurisdiction of a court of equity to entertain a suit by individual taxpayers to restrain cities and towns from carrying out invalid contracts, and performing other similar wrongful acts. 2 Dillon, Mun. Corp. (4th ed.) §§ 914 et seq. In Massachusetts it can hardly be considered an open question, it having been involved in the decision of Baldwin v. Wilbraham, 140 Mass. 459. As[39]*39suming that the full general equity jurisdiction of the court is unlimited by the retention of the provision of Pub. Sts. c. 27, § 129, still, according to the decision in Baldwin v. Wilbraham, the subject of this suit is outside of that jurisdiction.

Bill dismissed.

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

Allen, J.

This suit is not brought under Pub. Sts. e. 27, § 129, no such vote having been passed as is there contemplated. But the plaintiffs seek to maintain their bill under the general equity jurisdiction of the court. A difference of opinion has existed elsewhere whether it is within the general scope of the jurisdiction of a court of equity to entertain a suit by individual taxpayers to restrain cities and towns from carrying out invalid contracts, and performing other similar wrongful acts. 2 Dillon, Mun. Corp. (4th ed.) §§ 914 et seq. In Massachusetts it can hardly be considered an open question, it having been involved in the decision of Baldwin v. Wilbraham, 140 Mass. 459. As[39]*39suming that the full general equity jurisdiction of the court is unlimited by the retention of the provision of Pub. Sts. c. 27, § 129, still, according to the decision in Baldwin v. Wilbraham, the subject of this suit is outside of that jurisdiction.

Bill dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 N.E. 105, 160 Mass. 36, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steele-v-municipal-signal-co-mass-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack