O'Brien v. City of Pittsfield

• Decision Date: 01 June 1944
• Citation: 55 N.E.2d 440,316 Mass. 283
• Parties: O'BRIEN et al. v. CITY OF PITTSFIELD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

316 Mass. 283

55 N.E.2d 440

O'BRIEN et al.

v.CITY OF PITTSFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.

June 1, 1944.

Petition by James J. O'Brien and others, taxable inhabitants of the City of Pittsfield, to have determined an alleged deficiency in the amount of money appropriated by the city for the support of its schools for the year 1942 and to compel the city to provide the amount of the deficit in that appropriation, together with a sum equal to 25 per cent. of such deficiency, in accordance with the statute. From a decree dismissing the petition, the petitioners appeal, and the City of Pittsfield brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled, and decree reversed and a final decree directed to be entered ordering the city and its officials to provide the sum of $63,864, the amount of the deficiency, plus 25 per cent. thereof.Appeal from Superior Court, Berkshire County; Burns, Judge.

Before FIELD, C. J., and LUMMUS, QUA, DOLAN, RONAN, WILKINS, and SPALDING, JJ.

A. K. Carey and G. V. Mottla, both of Boston, for petitioners.

J. M. Rosenthal, City Sol., of Pittsfield, for respondents.

DOLAN, Justice.

This is a petition brought under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 71, § 34, inserted by St.1939, c. 294, by ten or more taxable inhabitants of the respondent city of Pittsfield (hereinafter referred to as the city) to have determined an alleged deficiency in the amount of money appropriated by the city for the support of its schools for the year 1942, and to compel the city to provide the amount of the deficit in that appropriation together with a sum equal to twenty-five per cent of such deficiency in accordance with the statute above referred to. After hearing, the judge entered a final decree dismissing the petition, and the case now comes before us upon the petitioners' appeal therefrom and upon the city's bill of exceptions based upon the exclusion of certain evidence.

The evidence is reported and the judge filed findings of fact. These facts together with others that we find ourselves (see Lowell Bar Association v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 178, 52 N.E.2d 27) may be summed up as follows: The petitioners are all teachers in the public schools of the city. At least ten of them are taxable inhabitants of the city. On June 12, 1941, the teachers committee of the school committee made the following recommendation: ‘Recommended that in accordance with the petitionof the Teachers Salary Committee, dated May 24, the annual salary of each teacher be increased by the sum of $200, effective on January 1, 1942, provided money for this increase is made available, the term teachers being understood to include teachers, principals, supervisors, directors, clerks in the employ of the School Department and the Superintendent.’ Upon motion it was voted by the school committee that this recommendation be approved. On November 21, 1941, the teachers committee made the following recommendation to the full school committee: ‘Recommended that the budget, as prepared for the year 1942, be approved and forwarded to the Mayor and City Council.’ The ‘budget’ (estimates) as prepared provided for an increase in the salaries of teachers amounting to $63,864, the total estimate for teachers' salaries being $613,072. The recommendation of the teachers committee that the estimates as prepared be approved and forwarded to the mayor and city council was adopted by vote of the school committee on November 21, 1941, and they were presented to the mayor in due course. The judge admitted evidence de bone to the effect that the estimates of the school committee, hereinafter referred to as the committee, were presented to the mayor by Superintendent of Schools Russell, and that he said to the mayor: ‘They [the committee] have added $200 [in each case] to the teachers' salaries, if the money is made available by you.’ Subsequently, on motion of the petitioners this evidence was struck out by the judge and the city duly excepted to that action. The mayor did not include in the budget the amount estimated for the increases in the salaries of the teachers, and the city appropriated for their salaries only $549,208 instead of the estimated amount therefor of $613,072. The sum appropriated was sufficient to pay the salaries of the teachers without the estimated increases. The judge found specifically that ‘There is no vote of the school committee modifying in any way * * * [their] vote of June 12, 1941.’

It would add nothing to our jurisprudence to repeat the settled principles of law relating to the powers and duties of school committees and to the obligations of muncipalities in connection therewith. These principles have been fully discussed in recent decisions of this court with citation of earlier decisions for principles which have been consistently followed. For these general principles a reference to Callahan v. Woburn, 306 Mass. 265,28 N.E.2d 447;O'Connor v. Brockton, 308 Mass. 34, 30 N.E.2d 842;Ring v....