Daly v. Haines
| Decision Date | 19 May 1922 |
| Citation | 241 Mass. 336,135 N.E. 307 |
| Parties | DALY v. HAINES et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Middlesex County.
Petition by Charles T. Daly, for a writ of mandamus against Benjamin F. Haines and others, to compel them to sign certificates alleged to be necessary in order that the petitioner may collect his salary as clerk of committees in the city of Medford. Reported by a single justice for determination by the full bench. Petition dismissed.
In preparing the annual budget it had been customary to include miscellaneous salaries under a single head, and at the beginning of the year 1921 the auditor submitted an estimate for such salaries of $6,900, which the mayor reduced by the amount of the salary of the clerk of committees. The board of aldermen, however, asked the mayor to appropriate $900 to provide for the payment of such salary, and, upon the mayor's failure to make reply or response, passed an order appropriating $900 for the payment of such sum. Plaintiff had made a formal demand each month for his salary, but was informed that there had been no certificate from the mayor and auditor.
Frederick W. Mansfield, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Guy E. Healey, Acting City Sol., of Boston, for respondents.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus by one elected clerk of committees of the city of Medford against the mayor and city auditor of that city to compel them to include his name in the salary draft so that his compensation will be paid to him.
It is provided in section 11 of the city charter of Medford (St. 1903, c. 345) that the board of aldermen ‘may appoint such assistant clerks and other officers as may be necessary for the proper conduct of its business.’ The board of aldermen acts as the city council of Medford. There is a chapter in the ordinances of the city of Medford concerning the ‘clerk of committees,’ wherein it is provided that--
‘The board of aldermen shall each year elect a clerk of committees, who shall hold office for the municipal year, and unitl his successor is elected and qualified, and whose compensation shall be such as the board of aldermen may from time to time determine.’
The plaintiff had been duly elected as clerk of committees for several years and was at the beginning of 1921 again elected. The mayor, having decided that there was no necessity for a clerk of committees and that as matter of economic administration the salary should be saved, in submitting his annual budget to the board of aldermen under G. L. c. 44, § 32, omitted any item for salary of that office. The budget as transmitted by the mayor grouped ‘several miscellaneous salaries under one head, designated as ‘Salaries.” The salary for the clerk of committees commonly had been included in this heading. The estimate for this group of salaries as prepared by the auditor and submitted to the mayor was $6,900 and included $900 for the salary of the clerk of committees. The mayor in his budget fixed $6,000 as his recommendation under this heading, reducing the estimate by the amount of the petitioner's salary. The budget was approved by the board of aldermen. That board passed an order to the effect that it deemed necessary an appropriation of $900 for the payment of the salary of the clerk of committees and requested the mayor to recommend an appropriation therefor. After the expiration of seven days without action by the mayor, the board of aldermen unanimously passed an order with adequate recitals appropriating $900 for the salary of the clerk of committees for the year.
This action by the board of aldermen was taken pursuant to G. L. c. 44, § 33, which empowers the city council ‘in case of failure of the mayor * * * to transmit to the city council a written recommendation for an appropriation for any purpose deemed necessary by the council, after having been so requested by vote thereof,’ and after the lapse of seven days, upon its own initiative to make an appropriation for such purpose by a vote of at least two-thirds of its members. The salary of the clerk of committees under all the circumstances here disclosed was a necessary detail of the budget under section 34 of G. L....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Police Com'r for City of Boston v. City of Boston
... ... County Commissioners v. Mayor of Newburyport, 252 Mass. 407, 410, 147 N. E. 901, 903. See, also, Daly v. Mayor of Medford, 241 Mass. 336, 339, 135 N. E. 307, and cases collected. Cases in which the merits have been fully argued and substantive grounds ... ...
-
Sch. Comm. of City of Lowell v. Mayor of City of Lowell
... ... That principle is well established. Daly v. Mayor of Medford, 241 Mass. 336, 339, 135 N. E. 307, and cases there cited. Gardner Trust Co. v. Whitehall Corp., 260 Mass. 239, 241, 157 N. E ... ...
-
Parrotta v. Hederson
... ... Directors of the Port of Boston, 222 ... Mass. 5 , 12-13; Thomas v. Municipal Council of Lowell, 227 ... Mass. 116, 120; Daly v. Mayor of Medford, 241 Mass. 336 , ... 339; Cambridge Savings Bank v. Clerk of Courts, 243 Mass. 424 ... , 427; McLaughlin v. Mayor of Cambridge, ... ...
-
Rines v. Justices of the Superior Court
... ... Justices of Superior Court, 208 Mass. 162, 164, 94 N.E. 369; Casey v. Justice of Superior Court, 229 Mass. 200, 201, 118 N.E. 297; Daly v. Mayor of Medford, 241 Mass. 336, 339, 135 N.E. 307; Cambridge Savings Bank v. Clerk of Courts, 243 Mass. 424, 427-428, 137 N.E. 872; Mayor of ... ...