Howland v. Inhabitants of Maynard

Decision Date14 July 1893
Citation34 N.E. 515,159 Mass. 434
PartiesHOWLAND v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF MAYNARD.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

It appeared on the trial that the defamatory matter charged by plaintiff to have been published by defendant was contained in an official publication of the report of an investigating committee duly selected by the town to investigate the manner in which plaintiff and another were performing a certain contract entered between them and defendant for the construction of water works.

COUNSEL

E Avery and H.L. Baker, for plaintiff.

J Hillis, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON J.

It is possible that this case might be disposed of on the ground that there was no publication by the town of the alleged libel, or that what was done was privileged; but, as we are of opinion that the defendant is not liable on the main question, we have not considered the questions of publication and privilege. Towns are instituted, in this state and in New England generally, for political purposes. They are created for convenience in the administration of the government. Stone v. Charlestown, 114 Mass. 223; Coolidge v Brookline, Id. 596; Agawam v. Hampden Co., 130 Mass. 531. They are given such powers as are necessary to carry into effect the purposes for which they are organized. Their powers are special and limited, because the purposes for which they are established are circumscribed. So far as the duties imposed upon them are purely public, and common to all towns, such as the maintenance of police, health, schools, and highways, for instance, they are not liable for an injury caused to any one through neglect in their performance, except in cases where a remedy is expressly given by statute. Hill v Boston, 122 Mass. 344; Tindley v. City of Salem, 137 Mass. 171. But there are many matters upon which they act that are of local concern, and which, though public in the sense that they are for the general benefit of all of the inhabitants of the particular town, are special to the inhabitants of that town. Such are waterworks, gas or electric lighting, free baths, the maintenance of main drains and common sewers, and other similar things. Upon all these matters, those which are common to all towns and those which may be called special and local, towns may act at meetings regularly called according to law. All things relating to them are or properly may be subject to the action and consideration of the voters of the town duly assembled in town meeting; and whatever is done at such a meeting is done in a legislative capacity, and not in any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Interstate Co. v. Garnett
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1929
  • Bd. Of Ed. v. Volk
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1905
    ... ... 570; Tindley v. Salem, 137 Mass ... 171; Fisher v. Boston, 104 Mass. 87; Howland v. Maynard, 34 ... N.E. 515; McCarthy v. Boston, 135 Mass. 197; Sullivan v ... Holyoke, 135 ... ...
  • Hehr's Adm'r v. Hehr
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • December 9, 1941
  • Wides v. Wides' Ex'r
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • October 13, 1944
    ... ... regard. Wigginton v. Leech's Adm'x, 285 Ky ... 787, 149 S.W.2d 531. See also Maynard's Adm'r v ... Maynard, 285 Ky. 75, 146 S.W.2d 343, as to ... 'jointure.' As was cryptically ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT