Donnelly v. Dover-Sherborn Regional School Dist.
Decision Date | 05 December 1960 |
Docket Number | DOVER-SHERBORN |
Citation | 170 N.E.2d 694,341 Mass. 497 |
Parties | Edward C. DONNELLY, Junior, and another, trustees, v.REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and others. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Gerald May, Boston (William H. McBain, Winchester, and Arthur F. Flaherty, Boston, with him), for plaintiffs.
Theodore Chase, Boston (Eric Verrill, Boston, with him), for defendants.
Before SPALDING, WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE, and CUTTER, JJ.
The plaintiffs seek a determination of the invalidity of an order of taking of June 7, 1960, adopted by the Dover-Sherborn Regional District School Committee purporting to take and of the plaintiffs in Dover, and a reconveyance of the land. The case was reported without decision by a judge of the Superior Court upon the amended bill, the answer, and an 'Agreement as to all Material Facts.'
At town meetings in the towns of Dover and Sherborn in 1953, the voters accepted the provisions of G.L. c. 71, §§ 16-16I, for the establishment of a school district. The two towns also agreed on a plan (See G.L. c. 71, §§ 14-15) which included a method of procedure for withdrawing from the district.
On July 14, 1953, the town of Sherborn voted to rescind the acceptance of the provisions of G.L. c. 71, §§ 16-16I. On August 11, 1953, it voted, in accordance with the provisions of the plan, to withdraw from the district at 'the conclusion * * * of an academic year after expiration of one year from giving * * * notice,' that is, as the parties agree, at the end of the academic year in 1955. On May 2, 1955, March 12, 1956, and March 11, 1957 Sherborn voted to postpone the effective date of the withdrawal, by the 1957 vote, to May 31, 1962. Dover on March 8, 1954, appropriated $408.49 for the regional school district and at each annual meeting, 1954 to 1960 inclusive, except 1955, elected a member of the regional distrist school committee.
At the annual meetings of the two towns held on March 7, 1960, St.1960, c. 144, entitled 'An Act relating to the Dover-Sherborn Regional School District and validating proceedings relating thereto' was accepted by the voters. It is agreed that the original of the warrant for the Dover town meeting dated February 3, 1960, and the supplemental warrant dated February 19, 1960, bearing the names of the three selectmen, were not in fact signed until February 24, when they were signed by two of the three selectmen.
Statute 1960, c. 144, was enacted March 3, 1960, and is as follows:
We hold that St.1960, c. 144, duly accepted by the voters of Sherborn and Dover, has put at rest the doubts relied an by the plaintiffs in respect to the existence and authority of the Dover-Sherborn Regional School District.
Perhaps the vote in Sherborn, which, under the last sentence of § 3 of the validating statute, effectively rescinded Sherborn's withdrawal, 1 was enough by itself, construed in the light of Dover's action and inaction over a long period ending with the meeting of March 7, 1960. Dover except in 1955, appears to have been steadily affirming the existence of the district and the vote of March 7, 1960, even if invalid, spoke that way. The provision for withdrawal of one town, under a statute which contemplates that more than two towns may be in the district (G.L. c. 71, §§ 14-15), does not necessarily contemplate that the district ceases corporate existence upon the withdrawal of one town. We do not, however, decide the significance of Sherborn's vote apart from Dover's, for it is our view that the vote in Dover was valid.
We do not pause to determine in what circumstances, if ever, there may be shown the invalidity of a meeting which appears of record to have been duly called pursuant to a duly returned warrant bearing, when returned, the signatures of the selectmen, and duly held. See Saxton v. Nimms, 14 Mass. 315, 320-321; Halleck v. Boylston, 117 Mass. 469, 470; Carbone, Inc. v. Kelly, 289 Mass. 602, 605, 194 N.E. 701. See, as to presumption of valid action, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Canton v. Bruno
...v. Nourse, 143 Mass. 490, 494, 10 N.E. 179; Gray v. Salem, supra, 271 Mass. at 498, 171 N.E. 432; Donnelly v. Dover-Sherborn Regional Sch. Dist., 341 Mass. 497, 502, 170 N.E.2d 694; OPINION OF THE JUSTICES, MASS., 274 N.E.2D 336.C See Campbell v. Boston, 290 Mass. 427, 195 N.E. 802. See als......
-
Elmer v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of Boston
... ... See Donnelly v. Dover- ... Sherborn Regional Sch. Dist., Mass., 170 ... ...
-
Albano v. Selectmen of South Hadley
... ... Whitney v. Judge of Dist. Court of Northern Berkshire, 271 Mass. 448, 459, 171 N.E ... Compare [341 Mass. 496] Moran v. School Committee of Littleton, 317 Mass. 591, 593-594, 59 N.E.2d ... ...
-
Chief of Police of Dracut v. Town of Dracut
...subsequent action of the Legislature.' Brucato v. Lawrence, 338 Mass. 612, 615--616, 156 N.E.2d 676, 679. See Donnelly v. Dover-Sherborn Regional Sch. Dist., 341 Mass. 497, 500, fn., 170 N.E.2d 694; Oleksak v. Westfield, 342 Mass. 50, 52--53, 172 N.E.2d 85; McDonough v. Lowell, 350 Mass. 21......