Haven v. Essex County Com'rs
| Citation | 29 N.E. 1083,155 Mass. 467 |
| Parties | HAVEN v. ESSEX COUNTY COM'RS. |
| Decision Date | 22 January 1892 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Solomon Lincoln, ( R.M. Morse, Jr., and Augustus P. Loring, of counsel,) for petitioner.
H.P Moulton and F.L. Evans, for respondents.
On a petition for a writ of certiorari the whole case is heard upon the petition. The reason of this is to enable the court to determine whether substantial justice requires the proceedings of the inferior tribunal to be quashed. If the case were heard merely upon the record, the discovery of errors would lead to quashing the proceedings; but, as the writ of certiorari is only to be granted in the discretion of the court when it is found that substantial justice has not been done by reason of some error in law, and as it will not be granted merely to enable the applicant to take advantage of formal or technical errors or of immaterial mistakes, the case is heard upon the petition, and it is the established "practice for the commissioners or other inferior tribunal in answer in the petition to return a copy of their record, except when it is annexed to the petition; and, if the record does not state in detail all the facts proved and rulings made, necessary for the determination of the case, to make a return or certificate stating fully such facts and rulings so far as necessary to raise the questions of law which the petitioners desire to have revised by this court and such return is conclusive as to all matters of fact within the jurisdiction of the inferior court." Tewksbury v. Commissioners, 117 Mass 563; Farmington River Water-Power Co. v Commissioners, 112 Mass. 206, 214; Lowell v. Commissioners, 146 Mass. 403, 412, 16 N.E. 8. There was no record annexed to the petition in the present case, except merely a copy of the petition to the county commissioners, and of their final decree. The statutes provide for a record of their doings, and we must assume that such a record exists. Pub.St. c. 159, § 16. But it is not before us. The county commissioners filed what they call an "answer" to the petition, in which no allusion is made to any record of their proceedings, except that "they say that the petitioner did appeal by petition to them; that hearings were had upon said appeal, and a decree entered dismissing said last-named petition, all as alleged by the petitioner." For want of a copy of their record, the petitioner's demurrer to the answer of the county commissioners might well have been sustained. The first and material thing for the county commissioners to do in answer to the petition was to set forth a copy of their record. Having done this, they might further, if they saw fit to do so, make a return or certificate of their rulings, and of the facts proved, so far as essential; and this return or certificate, as well as the record itself, would be conclusive as to all matters of fact, within their jurisdiction, passed upon by them. Mendon v. Commissioners, 2 Allen, 463, 5 Allen, 13; Farmington River Water-Power Co. v. Commissioners, 112 Mass. 206, 216; Tewksbury v. Commissioners, 117 Mass. 568. They might also, in addition to such certificate or return, allege and prove extrinsic facts to show that substantial justice does not require their proceedings to be quashed; and such allegations might be traversed. 112 Mass. 214; 117 Mass. 565, 566. The form of pleading which the county commissioners adopted in this case was to file an answer setting forth generally such matters and considerations as they deemed available in defense against the petition. Much of this answer, and perhaps most of it, consists of matters which, if they had returned a copy of their record, it would have been proper to set forth in a certificate or return of their doings. The record itself did not contain them. Some of it, however, is clearly outside of what is proper in such certificate. For instance, the statement that all their doings and rulings were correct and legal, and that they did not err in law, either in admitting or excluding testimony, or in refusing to make any abatement as alleged by the petitioner. This is the very matter to be determined, and their assertion cannot be held conclusive. The answer proveeds to set forth that certain of the evidence was received only for special purposes, and they add, in one instance, "that in determining the question presented to them the commissioners attached no weight to said evidence, or any part thereof;" and again, "that in determining the question presented to them they found that said evidence afforded them no assistance in arriving at a conclusion, and the same was accordingly disregarded by them, and did not affect the result arrived at;" and again, in respect to certain evidence, that it did not "affect the result at which they arrived, and that they arrived at the same conclusion as if the evidence mentioned had not been given;" and again, in respect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial