Cook v. Norfolk County
| Decision Date | 26 February 1909 |
| Citation | 201 Mass. 257,87 N.E. 599 |
| Parties | COOK v. NORFOLK COUNTY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Thomas E. Grover, for plaintiff.
Henry T. Richardson and Joseph H. Soliday, for defendant.
The plaintiff was appointed the second assistant clerk of the county of Norfolk, under Rev. Laws, c. 165, § 7, and he brings this action under St. 1904, p. 460, c. 451, § 6, to recover for traveling expenses while performing the duties of the office.
This last statute was enacted to establish the salaries of clerks and assistant clerks of courts in all parts of the commonwealth, and, so far as possible, to equalize them in reference to the population of the respective counties and the difficulty and importance of the duties performed by them respectively. The method adopted is by prescribing the amount of salary for each of these officers, and by making a provision for traveling expenses necessarily incurred by reason of the place in which the courts hold their sessions. The Legislature recognized the fact that, in every county in the state, there is an office of the clerks of the courts where the records are kept, and where the clerks and assistant clerks are expected to be regularly in daily attendance, unless called away to attend upon a session of the court in another place. They also recognized the fact that in several of the larger counties there are prescribed sessions of the courts, not only at the county seat, but at other places in the county. By Rev. Laws, c. 165, § 37, it is provided that the annual salaries of clerks shall be in full for all their services, except for such extra clerical assistance as is allowed under the provisions of the following section. It is plain, therefore, that a clerk of the court is not entitled to an allowance for traveling expenses to and from his office, in the performance of his daily duties. Ordinarily it is expected that he will have his residence in such convenient proximity to the place where he is required to be in daily attendance that he will not expend any considerable sums for traveling to and from his office. But if, for any reason he chooses to live at a distance from his office, the law leaves him to go back and forth at his own expense. In one case only, that of the assistant clerk of Bristol county, is there an exception to this rule. St. 1904, p. 459, c. 451, § 3. The only general provision for traveling expenses is in St. 1904, p. 460, c. 451, § 6, and it covers only those necessarily incurred when attending sessions of courts out of the cities or towns in which the clerks severally reside. This means necessarily incurred in connection with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norfolk County v. Cook
...or refusal to comply with the demand this suit was brought. The first contention of the defendant is that the decision in Cook v. County of Norfolk, ubi supra, was wrong and that was lawfully entitled to receive the money. But we remain satisfied with the decision. It must be held that the ......
-
Norfolk County v. Cook
...case to which the defendant was not a party, that the statute did not authorize such payments. [211 Mass. 392]Cook v. County of Norfolk, 201 Mass. 257, 87 N. E. 599, whereupon demand was made by the plaintiff upon this defendant for the return of the sums thus paid him, and upon his neglect......
-
Flagg v. Phillips
...one of which made his tenure subject to the provision that he should not ‘interfere with any rights of passage over said passageway.’ [87 N.E. 599]One right of passage of the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title was to the use of the entire width of the way if they desired it. Scott s......
- Flagg v. Phillips