Davis v. Com.

Decision Date06 September 1895
Citation164 Mass. 241,41 N.E. 292
PartiesDAVIS v. COMMONWEALTH
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

Hosea M. Knowlton, Atty. Gen., J. Mott Hallowell, 2d Asst. Atty Gen., for the Commonwealth.

John D Long and William Schifield, for appellee.

FIELD C.J.

This is a petition against the commonwealth, under Pub.St. c. 195, as amended by St.1887, c. 246. The common wealth demurred to the petition. The superior court overruled the demurrer, and ordered judgment for the petitioner; and the commonwealth appealed to this court. The order of the governor and council passed February 5, 1890, seems to us within the authority granted by the resolve of March 20, 1888, and we have no doubt that the legislature had the constitutional power to pass the resolve. We cannot declare the contract made with the petitioner by the governor and council void as against public policy, because the legislature has sanctioned it. Whether a similar contract between private individuals, in which the compensation to be paid is made contingent upon success, would be deemed at common law void, as against good morals and public policy, we need not consider. The legislature can determine for itself what public policy requires or permits to be done in the prosecution in any form of claims of the commonwealth against the United States. It is not bound, in fixing the compensation of its agents, to conform to the rules of the common law as interpreted by the courts, or to pass a general law whereby individuals shall be put upon the same footing as the commonwealth in the prosecution of similar claims.

The more difficult question in the case is whether the obligation of the commonwealth to the petitioner is affected by the act of congress of March 2, 1891, and by the acceptance of the money by the commonwealth from the United States under the resolve of April 8, 1891. By that resolve the commonwealth accepted in full satisfaction of all claims against the United States on account of the collection of the direct tax under the statute of the United States approved August 5, 1861, the money which had been credited to it by the secretary of the treasury of the United States, under the provisions of the statute of the United States approved March 2, 1891; and the commonwealth further accepted all trusts imposed upon it by the provisions of the last-named statute. The statute of the United States approved March 2, 1891, appropriated the money necessary to reimburse to each state and territory the amount of the direct tax collected under the statute of the United States approved August 5, 1861; and it provided that "no money shall be paid to any state or territory until the legislature thereof shall have accepted by resolution the sum herein appropriated and the trusts imposed in full satisfaction of all claims against the United States on account of the levy and collection of said tax, and shall have authorized the governor to receive said money for the uses and purposes aforesaid." The trusts imposed by this statute are "that where the sums or any part thereof credited to any state, territory, or the District of Columbia have been collected by the United States from the citizens or inhabitants thereof, or any other person either directly or by sale of property, such sums shall be held in trust by such state, territory, or District of Columbia, for the benefit of these persons or inhabitants from whom they were collected or their legal representatives." In this commonwealth the tax was not collected by a levy upon the inhabitants, but was paid by the commonwealth out of its treasury, and therefore this commonwealth did not receive the money upon the trust above mentioned. This statute of the United States also provided as follows: "That no part of the money hereby appropriated shall be paid out by the governor of any state or territory or any other person to any attorney or agent under any contract for services now existing or heretofore made between the representative of any state or territory and any attorney or agent. All claims under the trust hereby created shall be filed with the governor of such state or territory and the commissioners of the District of Columbia, respectively, within six years next after the passage of this act; and all claims not so filed shall be forever...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Fitts v. Commission of City of Birmingham
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 21 Enero 1932
    ... ... It ... is also well to note that the rule declared in the early ... Massachusetts cases has been changed by statute. Davis v ... Com., 164 Mass. 241, 41 N.E. 292, 30 L. R. A. 743. The ... Connecticut case finds support in the cases of Bachelder ... v. Epping, 28 N.H ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT