Inhabitants of Brookline v. Sherman
| Decision Date | 30 June 1885 |
| Citation | 140 Mass. 1,1 N.E. 153 |
| Parties | INHABITANTS OF BROOKLINE v. SHERMAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
M. & C.A. Williams, for plaintiffs.
A.O. Brewster, for defendant.
The defendant has no valid ground of exception to any of the rulings made at the trial. The engine-men were a fluctuating and temporary body, and did not constitute a corporation, and were not endowed with legal succession. They did not own the property provided for the use of the company. They could not sell it for the purpose of dividing the proceeds among themselves, nor could they distribute the property itself among themselves. The town provided the engine and engine-house and paid the engine-men. The property in controversy was for the use of such persons as should be members of the engine company for the time being. It could not have been contemplated that each member, upon withdrawing from time to time from the company, should be entitled to assert a private ownership to a share of the furniture. This would defeat the very object for which it was provided. Whoever gave money for this purpose, whether members of the company or citizens at large, must have given it with the understanding that the furniture should remain in the room, and that it should be appropriated for the use and benefit of the company as it might be constituted from time to time. The purpose was to improve and aid the efficiency of the organization by furnishing a convenient and attractive room for its use as a body, and not by making a gift of property to the individuals who comprised the company at that or any other particular time, which they might distribute among themselves or sell for their individual emolument.
It is more reasonable to consider that the title to the furniture was vested in the town which owned the building and the engine, and which paid the engine-men and the general expenses of maintaining the fire department. Whatever was given was given in law to the town for the purposes named. It is unnecessary here to consider whether the town took it as a trust which could be enforced. Whether it did or not, it would be equally entitled to recover. But the legal title must be somewhere. It is not in the individuals who comprise the company. The company has no corporate existence, and, on the facts stated, we are not satisfied that the legal title is in the town.
In Perry v. Stowe, 111 Mass. 60, no support is found for the claim of the defendant. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial