Attorney Gen. v. Varnum
Decision Date | 19 February 1897 |
Citation | 167 Mass. 477,46 N.E. 1 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GENERAL v. VARNUM. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case reserved from supreme judicial court, Suffolk county; James M. Barker, Judge.
Information in quo warranto by Hosea M. Knowlton, attorney general, against Charles F. Varnum, claiming and exercising the duties of the office of superintendent of public buildings of the city of Lowell.Judgment of ouster.
J.J. & W.A. Hogan, for the Attorney General.
Francis W. Qua, for respondent.
The question before us is as to the effect of St.1896, c. 415, entitled “An act to amend the charter of the city of Lowell,” upon the charter itself (St.1875, c. 173), and the ordinances passed in pursuance thereof, so far as the office of superintendent of public buildings for said city is concerned.By section 2, St.1875, it is provided: “The administration of the fiscal, prudential and municipal affairs of said city, with the government thereof, shall be vested in one principal officer, called the mayor, one select council, to be called the board of aldermen, and one council of not less than two nor more than four from each ward, to be called the common council; and the board of aldermen and the common council, in their joint capacity, shall be denominated the city council.”Section 16 declares that the mayor shall be “the chief executive officer of the city.”Section 17 provides: “The city council shall annually, as soon after their organization as may be convenient, meet in convention, and elect by joint ballot a city clerk, and a city treasurer and collector of taxes; they shall also elect by concurrent vote, any number of surveyors of highways, not exceeding three, and shall in such manner as the said city council may determine, by ordinance made for that purpose, elect all other officers necessary for the good government, peace and health of the city not herein otherwise provided for; and all officers elected or appointed by the city council, or either branch thereof, shall hold their offices according to the tenure of the same and until their successors are chosen and qualified, unless otherwise provided for.”By chapter 5, section 1, of the Ordinances of the City of Lowell it is provided as follows: “There shall be chosen annually, in the month of January or February, and whenever a vacancy occurs, by concurrent vote of both branches of the city council, a superintendent of public buildings, who shall hold his office until his successor is chosen, or he is removed; and said superintendent may be removed at the pleasure of the city council.”Other sections of the chapter referred to define his duties.It is agreed that before the passage and acceptance of St.1896, c. 415, the municipal business of the city of Lowell was conducted and administered by and through several departments, so called, namely, lands and buildings department, street department, health department, fire department, department of commons, and sewer department; and a joint committee of both branches of the city council for each of the said departments was annually appointed to have charge of said departments.It is also agreed that the superintendent of public buildings, under the direction of the joint standing committee on lands and buildings, or of the board of aldermen, had the care of the schoolhouses and other buildings belonging to the city, and had power to employ suitable mechanics, and to superintend all repairs made on said buildings; he had also the charge of all carpenters' tools and materials belonging to the city, not otherwise provided for; he was also required to keep a record of all buildings belonging to the city, and the lands appurtenant thereto, and to report in the month of January annually to the city council in relation to the same, showing their condition, and the nature and amount of expenditures made...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. City Manager of Haverhill
...power to remove is not expressly given or implied from the power to appoint, Murphy v. Webster, 131 Mass. 482, 488; Attorney General v. Varnum, 167 Mass. 477, 480, 46 N.E. 1, the city council, the appointing or electing body, shall be the removing body. See Adie v. Mayor of Holyoke, 303 Mas......
-
King v. Mayor of Quincy
...him ‘the chief executive officer of the city.’ G. L. c. 43, § 48, formerly St. 1915, c. 267, pt. 2, § 3. See Attorney General v. Varnum, 167 Mass. 477, 480, 46 N. E. 1. After the case was entered in this court a motion was made by the petitioner, and assented to by the respondent, to amend ......
- Attorney General v. Varnum