Dunn v. Inhabitants of Framingham
| Decision Date | 03 March 1882 |
| Citation | 132 Mass. 436 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | William F. Dunn & others v. Inhabitants of Framingham |
Argued November 15, 1881
Middlesex. Petition in equity, filed July 5, 1881, under the Gen. Sts. c. 18, § 79, by twelve persons, representing that they were all taxable inhabitants of Framingham; that on April 4, 1881, a town meeting of the town was held in pursuance of a warrant issued by the selectmen therefor which warrant contained, among others, the following article "To see if the town will take any action in regard to the enforcement of the liquor law, or pass any vote relative thereto;" that this article came up for consideration during the meeting, and the following votes were separately passed by a majority of the voters then present:
The petition then alleged that the petitioners had no exact information as to the action of the selectmen, but believed, and had reason to believe, that none of the money so appropriated had been paid out by said town or its treasurer, and that the petitioners were informed and believed that the selectmen felt themselves bound by these votes, and were preparing to pay out of the town treasury the whole or a part of the sum voted; that the votes were illegal; that the town had no right to pay over money for the object named in the votes; and prayed that the selectmen and treasurer of the town be enjoined from taking any action under said votes.
To this petition the defendant demurred, on the ground that the petitioners had not stated a case which entitled them to any relief. The case was heard by Lord, J., on the petition and demurrer, and reserved for the consideration of the full court.
Petition dismissed.
G. C. Travis, for the respondent.
R. Gordon & G. H. Gordon, for the petitioners.
The only question presented to us in this case is, whether a town has the right to raise and appropriate money for "the enforcement of the liquor law," and "to employ efficient agents and counsel to suppress the sale of intoxicating liquors."
Towns derive all their authority to tax their inhabitants from the statutes. If the authority to tax for a particular purpose is drawn in question, we must look to the statutes to see if it is found there, either by express terms or by clear implication. The Gen. Sts. c. 18, § 10, provide that towns may grant and vote such sums as they judge necessary for certain purposes specified, and "for all other necessary charges arising therein." The enforcement of the liquor law is not one of the purposes specifically named, and therefore we are to inquire whether it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crocker v. Deschenes
...but to the treasurer of the town, likewise acting as a public officer and not as an agent of the town.’ See, also, Dunn v. Inhabitants of Framingham, 132 Mass. 436, 438. In Commonwealth v. Nickerson, 236 Mass. 281, 128 N. E. 273, 10 A. L. R. 1568, relied on by the petitioners, holding that ......
-
Leonard v. Inhabitants of Middleborough
...a town such a corporate interest in the enforcement of the law as to warrant the appropriation in question. But in Dunn v. Framingham, 132 Mass. 436, it was held that selectmen acted in the enforcement of the law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, not as public agents, but as age......
-
Leonard v. Inhabitants of Middleborough
...seem to give a town such a corporate interest in the enforcement of the law as to warrant the appropriation in question. But in Dunn v. Framingham, 132 Mass. 436, it was held that selectmen acted in the enforcement of law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, not as public agents, b......
-
Flood v. Leahy
...and Woodbury v. Hamilton, 6 Pick. 101;Allen v. Taunton, 19 Pick. 485;Curran v. Holliston, 130 Mass. 272, and Dunn v. Framingham, 132 Mass. 436-in which the action was declared legal. It is to be noted that the duty, right, or interest must be corporate, as distinguished from the individual ......