Fitzgerald v. Pawtucket St. Ry.
Decision Date | 21 May 1902 |
Citation | 52 A. 887,24 R.I. 201 |
Parties | FITZGERALD v. PAWTUCKET ST. RY. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Injunction by John J. Fitzgerald against the Pawtucket Street Railway. Injunction granted.
Argued before STINESS, C. J., and TILLINGHAST and ROGERS, JJ.
Edwards & Angell, for respondents.
This bill is brought to enjoin the respondents from doing work under an ordinance purporting to have been passed by the city council of the city of Pawtucket January 6, 1902, upon the ground that the ordinance was not legally enacted. The case is submitted on the bill and testimony taken at the hearing upon a preliminary injunction. The facts, as shown, are that the ordinance was passed by the common council at a meeting held December 16, 1901, and by the board of aldermen December 24, 1901; that a special meeting of the common council was held January 4, 1902, at which the ordinance was returned without the approval of the mayor, and with his objections thereto, whereupon the ordinance, with the message of the mayor, was laid over to the next meeting, which, by adjournment, was to be held on January 6, 1902, at 9 o'clock a. m.; that on said January 6th the president was present at 9 o'clock, but no quorum was present, and at 9:35 o'clock he directed the clerk of the common council to read the roll call of its members, and, as no one answered the roll call, or appeared in the council chamber to transact any business, he declared the meeting adjourned for lack of a quorum. The clerk made record: The record then shows the following entry: The charter of Pawtucket, relating to the organization of the city council (section 17), provides: "The aldermen and common council-men shall meet in the town record building, or in such other place as the city council may determine, on the first Monday of January in each year at 10 o'clock in the forenoon." The charter also provides (section 15) that the tenure of office of officers shall commence on the first Monday in January, "and they shall hold their respective offices until their successors shall be elected and qualified." It also provides that a majority of the members of each branch shall be a quorum.
Several...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Long v. Fugere
...that the adjournment by the minority in the absence of a quorum was premature, and relies chiefly upon the cases of Fitzgerald v. Pawtucket St. Ry., 24 R.I. 201, 52 A. 887, and Lester v. Citizens' Savings Bank, 17 R.I. 88, 20 A. 231. We do not think that either case supports his contention.......
-
Gorman v. Stillman
...And of course it goes without saying that, by accepting the office of executor of the will referred to in the former opinion (see 24 R. I. 201, 52 Atl. 1088), the respondent became subject to the laws of this state in the It further appears that the bill which was filed in court January 25,......
-
Devlin v. White
...the inauguration of the new board of aldermen of the city of Pawtucket. 1. The case is ruled by the opinion in Fitzgerald v. Pawtucket St. Ry., 24 R. I. 201, 52 Atl. 887, where it is held that the term of a legislative body, which expires by law at a certain hour, cannot be extended beyond ......