Farnsworth v. Melrose
| Decision Date | 07 March 1877 |
| Citation | 122 Mass. 268 |
| Parties | William J. Farnsworth v. Inhabitants of Melrose |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Middlesex. Contract upon an account annexed for services and expenses as a selectman and overseer of the poor.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., it was admitted by the plaintiff that the town had made no express agreement to pay him for such services, and that no salary was attached to his office. The plaintiff contended, and asked the judge to rule, that the law would imply a promise to pay him, and offered to show a custom and usage in the defendant town and in other towns in Massachusetts to pay such officers a reasonable compensation for their services. The judge ruled that such evidence was immaterial, and that the plaintiff could not recover for his services. The defendant assented that the plaintiff might have a verdict for the amount of his expenses while rendering such services and the jury, under the direction of the judge, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of such expenses.
The judge reported the case, by agreement of parties, for the determination of this court. If the ruling was correct judgment was to be entered upon the verdict; otherwise, the case to stand for a new trial.
Judgment on the verdict.
A. V. Lynde, for the plaintiff.
C. R. Train, for the defendant.
The statutes of the Commonwealth are framed upon the theory that those who are chosen by their fellow citizens to be the selectmen of a town will accept and execute the office from a sense of duty to the public, or of the honor attending it and not for pecuniary reward; and they have provided for compensation in but a few cases, of peculiar services, not incidental to the ordinary administration of the prudential affairs of the town, as,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbs v. City of Manchester
...637; Saunders v. Nashua, 69 N. H. 492, 43 Atl. 620; White v. Levant, 78 Me. 568, 7 Atl. 539; Sikes v. Hatfield, 13 Gray, 347; Farnsworth v. Melrose, 122 Mass. 268; Farrell v. Bridgeport, 45 Conn. 191; Haswell v. New York, 81 N. Y. 255; Fitzsirnmons v. Brooklyn, 102 N. Y. 536, 7 N. E. 787, 5......
-
Hartley v. Inhabitants of Granville
...public duty or under the compulsion arising from the pecuniary forfeit entailed by a refusal, and not from hope of money gain. Farnsworth v. Melrose, 122 Mass. 268. considerations reinforce the conclusion that the obligation is not incumbent upon the constable to give up his ordinary occupa......
-
Beckwith v. Town of Farmington
...164, 169, 22 Atl. 430; O'Connor v. Waterbury, 69 Conn. 206, 211, 37 Atl. 499; White v. Levant, 78 Me. 568, 7 Atl. 539; Farnsworth v. Inhabitants of Melrose, 122 Mass. 268; Cochrane v. Inhabitants of Melrose, 121 Mass. 563; Sawyer v. Pawners' Bank, 6 Allen (88 Mass.) In view of this law and ......
-
City of Tacoma v. Lillis
... ... this conclusion. See 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) § 230; ... Sikes v. Hatfield, 13 Gray, 347; Farnsworth v ... Melrose, 122 Mass. 268; Albright v. County of ... Bedford, 106 Pa. St. 582; Garvie v. City of ... Hartford, 54 Conn. 440, 7 ... ...