Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Boston v. Justice of the Municipal Court of the Dorchester District of the City of

• Decision Date: 03 July 1917
• Citation: 228 Mass. 12
• Parties: COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF BOSTON v. JUSTICE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE DORCHESTER DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

228 Mass. 12

COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF BOSTON v. JUSTICE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE DORCHESTER DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

July 3, 1917

March 13 1917.

Present: RUGG, C J., DE COURCY, CROSBY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.

Civil Service. Certiorari. Words, "Final and conclusive." The provision of St. 1911, c. 624, Section 1, as amended by St 1915, c.

251, that, on a petition of a person holding an office classified under the civil service rules of the Commonwealth to the police district or municipal court within the judicial district where such person resides for review of the action of an officer or board in removing the petitioner, "The decision of the justice of said police, district or municipal court shall be final and conclusive upon the parties," means that the justice's findings of fact shall be final and binding on the parties, but it does not leave the parties without remedy if there are essential errors of law apparent on the record of the proceedings depriving such a party of substantial rights, and a person so aggrieved may maintain a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash such erroneous proceedings.

Petitions for writs of certiorari were brought by the commissioner of public works of the city of Boston against a justice of the Municipal

Court of the Dorchester District of that city to quash orders made by that judge upon reviews under

St. 1911, c.

624, Section 1, as amended by St. 1915, c. 251, reversing orders made by the petitioner abolishing the office of supervisor of permits of the public works department and the offices of division engineer and superintendent of main drainage of the sewer and water service of the public works department, on the ground that the orders abolishing the offices were made in bad faith as an attempted evasion of the requirements of the civil service statutes. The returns of the respondents to the petitions set forth sufficient facts to warrant the finding of the judge of the municipal court that the orders of the petitioner abolishing the offices were not made in good faith. Held, that the decision of the judge that the orders of removal were made without proper cause and in bad faith showed no error of law and was not reviewable on a writ of certiorari.

In the case described above, it was pointed out that the decision of this court upon the record presented was not to be taken as an intimation that either the petition or the return was correct in form, both of them containing defects to which no objection had been raised.

THREE PETITIONS, filed on December 23, 1916, by the commissioner of public works of the city of Boston, for a writ of certiorari to quash orders made by the respondent justice of the Municipal Court of the Dorchester District of the city of Boston under St. 1911, c. 624, Section 1, as amended by St. 1915, c. 251, reversing certain orders made by the petitioner and reinstating the other respondents respectively as supervisor of permits, division engineer of the sewer and water service and superintendent of main drainage, all of the public works department.

The three cases were heard together by Braley, J., who made a memorandum of decision containing the findings of fact that are stated in the opinion. The answer of the respondent justice "contained a full and complete record of the doings of the Dorchester court, including a complete typewritten copy of all the evidence."

The single justice refused to rule at the request of the respondents that under St. 1911, c. 624, Section 1, as amended by St. 1915, c. 251, the decision of the respondent justice of the Dorchester court was "final and conclusive upon the parties" and that the petitions could not be maintained.

The petitioner asked the single justice to rule that as a matter of law the writ should issue in each of the cases. The single justice refused to make this ruling. He found "that, while there may have been some evidence admitted which at the trial of an action at law would have been excluded, yet the material findings of fact appearing in the answer are supported by competent evidence. Nor does it appear that the [Dorchester] court adopted any wrong standard of decision or that substantial justice has not been done."

The single justice ordered that in each of the cases the petition be dismissed; and the petitioner alleged exceptions.

St. 1911, c.

624, Section 1, as amended by St. 1915, c. 251, is as follows: "Every person now holding or hereafter appointed to an office classified under the civil service rules of the Commonwealth, except members of the police department of the city of Boston, of the police department of the metropolitan park commission, and except members of the district police, whether appointed for a definite or stated term, or otherwise, who is removed therefrom, lowered in rank or compensation, or suspended, or, without his consent, transferred from such office or employment to any other, may, after a public hearing, as provided for by section two of chapter three hundred and fourteen of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and four, as amended by chapter two hundred and forty-three of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and five, and within thirty days after such hearing, bring a petition in the police, district or municipal court within the judicial district where such person resides, addressed to the justice of the court and praying that the action of the officer or board in removing, suspending, lowering or transferring him may be reviewed by the court, and after such notice to such officer or board as the court may think necessary, it shall review the action of said officer or board, and hear any witnesses, and shall affirm said order unless it shall appear that said order was made by said officer or board without proper cause or in bad faith, in which case said order shall be reversed and the petitioner be reinstated in his office. The decision of the justice of said police, district or municipal court shall be final and conclusive upon the parties."

J. P. Lyons, for the petitioner.

A. D. Hill, (R.

H. Wiswall with him,) for the respondents.

CARROLL, J. The petitioner is the commissioner of public works of the city of Boston. Acting under the revised ordinances of the city 1914, c. 28, he attempted to abolish the office of supervisor of permits of the public works department, which office was occupied by Storrs L. Durkee; the office of division engineer of the sewer and water service of the public works department, occupied by Frank A. McInnes, and the office of superintendent ...