Fowler v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 17 May 1905
• Citation: 74 N.E. 291,188 Mass. 64
• Parties: FOWLER et al. v. BROOKS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

188 Mass. 64

74 N.E. 291

FOWLER et al. v. BROOKS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

May 17, 1905

COUNSEL

Marvin M. Taylor and John S. Gould, for petitioners.

Arthur P. Rugg and J. Fred Humes, for respondents.

OPINION

HAMMOND, J.

Six taxpayers and citizens of the city of Worcester bring this petition for mandamus to compel the school committee of that city to assume the care of the public school houses. It is not shown that the petitioners have any children attending the public schools, or that they have any interest in the matter, except that which arises from the fact that they are such taxpayers and citizens.

So far as material to the ground of our decision, the petition may be briefly summarized as alleging that the duty of caring for the public school houses of the city rests legally upon the school committee, but that the performance of the duty is usurped by the mayor, city council, and superintendent of streets, who, without right, are taking the care, and propose to continue to do so; and it prays that a writ of mandamus shall issue, commanding the school committee to do their duty in the premises, and the usurpers to stop their usurpation. In a word, the case as shown by the petition is that certain public bodies are usurping powers of the school committee with reference to the care of schoolhouses, and the petitioners want this usurpation stopped by a writ of mandamus. The school committee have answered in a body admitting in substance that the duty of caring for the schoolhouses rests upon them, but declaring that the usurpers stand in the way, so that they cannot discharge that duty and they await the order of the court.

Various motions to dismiss and answers including demurrers have been filed by the other respondents, in relation to which the petitioners have filed several motions; the whole resulting in a reasonably complicated state of preliminary questions, having but little, if any, bearing upon the real question at issue, which is whether or not the duty of caring for the schoolhouses rests by law upon the school committee.

We have not found it necessary to consider in detail the various questions arising upon the preliminary pleadings, because we are of opinion that for fundamental reasons the bill does not present a case calling for mandamus proceedings. It is plain from a reading of the bill that the duty of caring for the schoolhouses is exercised...