Goddard v. Inhabitants of Harpswell
| Decision Date | 13 December 1895 |
| Citation | 33 A. 980,88 Me. 228 |
| Parties | GODDARD v. INHABITANTS OF HARPSWELL. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Action in trover by Robert Goddard against the inhabitants of Harpswell for the conversion of some stone used in the construction of a road. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Defendants move for a new trial. Motion sustained.
C. W. Larrabee, for plaintiff.
Weston Thompson, for defendants.
The defendant town was required by law, in consequence of a decree of the county commissioners, affirmed by this court upon appeal, to open and build a certain town way or road within the town. The road was afterwards built, and certain stone of the plaintiff within the location of the road was appropriated, and used in its construction. The plaintiff brought against the town this action of trover for that conversion of his stone.
To connect the town with the conversion of the stone, he adduced the following evidence: (1) A vote of the town "to raise three hundred dollars by assessment, and allow the selectmen to hire a sum, not exceeding five hundred dollars," to pay "for land damages, and to build the road" (viz. the road in question); (2) the acts of three men, the selectmen of the town, in advertising for proposals, and making a contract with one Coombs, of Brunswick, for building the road; (3) the direction by the selectmen to the contractor to make use of the plaintiff's stone as material for the road; (4) the appropriation and use by the contractor of the stone under that direction; (5) the approval by the town auditor of a charge by the selectmen for advertising for proposals, and of a charge for the $500 hired.
It does not appear whether the selectmen at the time of their action were also either highway surveyors or road commissioners, as they might lawfully have been. If they were, then as to opening and building this road they were public officers, acting for the public, and not mere town agents, acting for the town. In such case, though the town appointed them, and furnished the money for them to expend, it is not responsible for their unlawful acts. Goddard v. Inhabitants of Harpswell, 84 Me. 499, 24 Atl. 958; Hennessey v. City of New Bedford, 153 Mass. 260, 26 N. E. 999. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, in an action against the town, it is to be presumed that they were acting as such public officers.
If, however, they were not such officers, but were acting, or assuming to act, as selectmen and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Getchell v. Inhabitants of Oakland
...authority in the repair of roads, are not agents of the town, and for whose acts the town is not liable; and Goddard v. Inhabiants of Harpswell, 88 Me. 228, 33 Atl. 980, where it was held that selectmen, empowered by the town to borrow money for road building, could not act as agents of the......
-
Bowden v. City of Rockland
...not affect his relative status to the city, and could not bind the city in respect to the commissioner's acts. In Goddard v. Inhabitants of Harpswell, 88 Me. 228, 33 Atl. 980, it was held that the selectmen, without vote of the town authorizing it could not make themselves agents of the tow......
-
State v. Fuller
...of the regular road officers," and cannot bind the town by contracts made by them for the construction of such a way (Goddard v. Harpswell, 88 Me. 228, 33 Atl. 980, and cases cited); but the conclusion sought to be deduced from this proposition by the defendant is not warranted by the facts......