Kidder v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 12 February 1916
• Citation: 96 A. 750,90 Vt. 147
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: KIDDER v. WILSON.

96 A. 750

90 Vt. 147

KIDDER

v. WILSON.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Chittenden.

Feb. 12, 1916.

Exceptions from Chittenden County Court; Willard W. Miles, Judge.

Action by J. Frank Kidder against William H. Wilson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Reversed, and judgment for defendant.

Sherman R. Moulton and V. A. Bullard, both of Burlington, for plaintiff. Edmund C. Mower, Chas. H. Darling, and Levi P. Smith, all of Burlington, for defendant.

POWERS, J. The charter of the city of Burlington provides that the city council shall appoint a board of water commissioners, which shall have the exclusive general management and control of the waterworks owned by the city; that these commissioners shall appoint a superintendent, whom they may remove for cause; that the superintendent shall have the special and immediate care and practical supervision of the waterworks and property used in connection therewith, but shall at all times be subject in respect thereto to the orders of the commissioners.

On the 25th day of April, 1914, the commissioners appointed the plaintiff superintendent of waterworks for the term of one year from the 1st day of May then next. He accepted the appointment, entered upon the discharge of his duties as superintendent, and continued therein until removed as hereinafter stated.

In July, 1914, the water commissioners were removed from office by the city council, and a new board of commissioners was appointed by it. The new commissioners entered into the control and management of the affairs of their office, and continued therein until the latter part of March, 1915, when the decision of this court in Rutter v. Burke, 89 Vt. 14, 93 Atl. 842, was handed down.

On the 11th day of July, 1914, the new water commissioners removed the plaintiff, and, having combined the positions of superintendent of the city waterworks and superintendent of the city filtration plant, on the 13th day of July, 1914, they appointed the defendant superintendent thereof. He accepted the appointment, and entered upon and discharged the duties of the position until he gave way to the plaintiff as stated below.

The removal of the first board of commissioners was declared illegal in Rutter v. Burke, supra; and on the 15th day of April, 1915, the new board retired, and the old commissioners resumed office. Thereupon the defendant surrendered his position to the plaintiff, having received the salary attached thereto from August 1, 1914, to April 7, 1915. It is for the salary so received that this suit is brought.

The plaintiff predicates his action upon a proposition which may be thus...