Bauer v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 01 March 1924
• Parties: BAUER et al. v. MITCHELL et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

247 Mass. 522

142 N.E. 815

BAUER et al.

v.MITCHELL et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

March 1, 1924.

Appeal from Superior Court, Essex County; H. A. Dubuque, Judge.

Suit in equity by Ralph S. Bauer and others against John M. Grosvenor, James C. Poor, and Robert Mitchell. The bill was dismissed as to the first two named defendants, and from a decree overruling his demurrer, the remaining defendant appeals, and from the final decree plaintiffs appeal. Decree reversed, and demurrer sustained. Decree to be entered dismissing bill on amendment.

A. X. Dooley, of Lawrence for appellants.

James J. Ronan, of Salem, for appellees.

RUGG, C. J.

This suit in equity is brought in their individual names by four of the seven trustees of the Independent Agricultural School of the county of Essex (hereafter called the school) against the three county commissioners of the county of Essex who are the three remaining trustees of the school and who also constitute the board of trustees of the tuberculosis hospital of the county of Essex (hereafter called the hospital), being both such trustees by virtue of their office as county commissioners of the county of Essex.

The salient facts alleged in the bill are that the school was established under the provisions of St. 1912, c. 587, for the purpose of affording instruction in agriculture, and that to enable the execution of that object a large tract of land was in 1913 bought in fee free from all conditions in the name and with moneys of the county of Essex, which was appropriated to the uses of the school, all under the direction, management and control of the trustees of the school. Another parcel of land adjacent to the school land was taken by eminent domain by the county of Essex and a tuberculosis hospital was built and is being maintained thereon under the provisions of St. 1916, c. 286. The defendants, without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiffs and without right, have entered upon a portion of the land bought and used for the school, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining thereon cesspools and filter beds with connecting drains to afford treatment and disposal of the sewage of the hospital, to the irreparable damage of the school, and the defendants refuse to remove or to cease the use of the same.

The defendants demurred to the bill on divers grounds. The only ground now argued is that the county of Essex is a necessary party to these proceedings. The demurrer must be sustained on that ground. The legal title to all land and property used in connection with the school is in the county of Essex. The same is true of all land and property used in connection with the hospital. All expenses and costs both direct and remote which might arise in the course of righting the wrongs of which the plaintiffs complain must be paid by the county of Essex. The remedy to be afforded for such alleged wrongs also affects solely the county of Essex. The filter beds and drains are constructed upon land of the county of Essex. Those constructions are designed only for the use and benefit of other property of the county of Essex. Manifestly, the county of Essex in the capacity of owner of all property directly and indirectly concerned in the subject matter of the bill is a necessary party to this proceeding. Its property interests alone are concerned. Obviously, where the sole financial aspects of a suit relate to a party, that party is essential to an adjudication of the issues of such suit. Allen v. Turner, 11 Gray, 436;Taunton v. Taylor, 116 Mass. 254;Welch v. Boston, 211 Mass. 178, 186, 97 N. E. 893.

Although service of process in proceedings to which a county is defendant commonly must be made on the county treasurer (G. L. c. 223, § 37), yet the county commissioners are by statute authorized to represent the county (G. L. c. 34, § 14). The individuals composing the county commissioners of the county of Essex are named as defendants in this suit. The case has been heard at length before a master and by a judge upon confirmation of his report and for entry of final decree. The facts seem to have been fully developed. While it would have been appropriate for the county to be represented by counsel, different from those representing the trustees of the hospital, we cannot see that substantial rights have been affected. Bringing in the county of Essex as a party would seem to be a formal matter. Therefore amendment may be allowed making the county of Essex a party. Worcester Board of Health v. Tupper, 210 Mass. 378, 383, 96 N. E. 1096.

[5] The case is considered on the footing that such amendment is made. The findings of the master in the absence of a report of the evidence must be accepted as true unless mutually repugnant or contradictory and plainly wrong. Glover v. Waltham Laundry, 235 Mass. 330, 334, 127 N. E. 420. Those findings so far as material, in addition to the undisputed facts set forth in the bill, are that the land bought in fee by the county of Essex for the school comprises about 114 acres. This property has been improved and enlarged by the alteration of existing and the construction of new buildings, so that at the times here in question it was the site of a large and growing school for the youth of both sexes. The acquirement, construction and maintenance of this property has involved large expenditures of money made exclusively for the purposes of the school. The conveyance of the land was obtained by the trustees of the school solely for purposes of the school, and its location and extent determined by them to that end with the approval of the state board of education.

The cost of the hospital has been approximately $1,500,000, and a considerable number of patients are there treated constantly. Apparently some system of sewage disposal is essential to the valuable use of the hospital. The filter bed system of the hospital occupies about 3 acres...