Cook v. City of Springfield

• Decision Date: 20 October 1903
• Citation: 184 Mass. 247,68 N.E. 201
• Parties: COOK v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

184 Mass. 247

68 N.E. 201

COOK v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 20, 1903

COUNSEL

Alfred

S. Hayes and Alvah G. Sleeper, for plaintiff.

Henry A. King, for defendant.

OPINION

LORING J.

The plaintiff was a license commissioner of the city of Springfield under St. 1894, c. 428, for a term beginning June 1, 1896, and ending May 31, 1902. By section 6 of that act it is provided that 'each city shall pay its board of license commissioners such salaries as the city council subject to the approval of the mayor, may from time to time establish,' and it is conceded that under that act the license commissioners were to be paid, and were not to serve gratuitously. In October, 1894--nearly two years before the plaintiff's term of office began--the city council of Springfield passed an order that the compensation of the chairman should be $250 a year, and that the other two members of the board should serve without compensation. In January, 1897--that is to say, in the January succeeding the June when the plaintiff's term of office began--he and his fellow commissioners petitioned the city council to increase the salary of the chairman, and that a salary be paid to the other members of the board, on which the petitioners were given leave to withdraw. A like petition was made by them in April, 1900, with the same result. In June 1900, the plaintiff was appointed chairman and secretary of the board, and served as such during the remainder of his term; and for the time during which he has served as chairman he has received compensation at the rate of $250 per annum but he has received no other compensation. On November 18, 1901, the plaintiff petitioned the city council 'to take such action as will result in paying him the annexed bill of $5,000 for services as a member of the board of license commissioners from January 1, 1896, to June 1, 1901, said bill being at the rate of $1,000 per year,' on which he was given leave to withdraw. On December 23, 1901, the city council passed an order fixing the compensation of the member of the board who acted as chairman and secretary at the rate of $250 a year, and the compensation of the other two members at the rate of $5 per annum, these salaries to be the compensation for services rendered from July 2, 1894, to December 31, 1901. On March 21, 1902, the plaintiff brought this action against the city to recover the reasonable value of his services as license commissioner from the beginning of his term to December 1, 1901, outside of his service as chairman and secretary; and he testified that these services were reasonably worth $5,500, being at the rate of $1,000 a year. The plaintiff also testified to the character of the services rendered by him, and that he estimated that he devoted 75 days each year to the work. The defendant tendered the plaintiff compensation at the rate of $5 per annum, with costs. This was declined. A verdict was ordered for the defendant, and the case is here on an exception to that ruling.

What was said by ...