Leonard v. Inhabitants of Middleborough
| Decision Date | 06 March 1908 |
| Citation | 84 N.E. 323,198 Mass. 221 |
| Parties | LEONARD et al. v. INHABITANTS OF MIDDLEBOROUGH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
George F. Tucker, for petitioners.
Nathan Washburn and B. J. Allan, for defendants.
The town of Middleborough voted no license in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors in the year 1903, and appropriated at the annual meeting in that year $500 to employ counsel and prosecute the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor in the town. One Greene, a special police officer, was duly appointed a committee by the authorities of the town to have charge of the money so appropriated. He and one Luippold, a constable of the town, arrested or caused to be arrested one O'Hara for illegally transporting intoxicating liquors into the town and for bringing intoxicating liquors into the town with intent to sell the same. O'Hara was acquitted on both complaints and afterwards sued Greene and Luippold for malicious prosecution and false arrest. Greene and Luippold were put to expense in defending the action and at the annual town meeting held in March, 1907, under an article in the warrant to see if the town would vote to reimburse Greene and Luippold for the money expended by them in defending the action brought by O'Hara, the town voted to expend $200 therefor. Thereupon this petition was brought by more than 10 taxpayers of the town of Middleborough under Rev. Laws, c. 25, § 100, to restrain the payment of the money so voted. The case was heard upon agreed facts and the presiding justice ordered the petition to be dismissed and reported the case to this court. If the town had no right to appropriate the money a permanent injunction is to issue otherwise the petition is to be dismissed.
Towns cannot raise and appropriate money except for the purposes for which within the scope of the Legislature's constitutional powers, they are expressly or by fair implication authorized by law to raise and appropriate it. This results from the nature of and limitations upon their powers in our scheme of government. There is no express provision authorizing towns to raise and appropriate money for such a purpose as that for which the money was appropriated in the case before us. Rev. Laws, c. 26, § 21, in relation to the indemnification of police officers and firemen, applies to cities and not to towns. But the statute giving towns power to appropriate money provides that in addition to the cases therein specified towns may raise and appropriate money 'for all other necessary charges arising in such town.' Rev. Laws, c. 25, § 15. This has been construed to authorize a town to raise and appropriate money in respect to matters when it has a corporate duty, right, or interest to perform, defend or protect. Hixon v. Sharon, 190 Mass. 347, 76 N.E. 909; Flood v. Leahy, 183 Mass 232, 66 N.E. 787; Vincent v. Nantucket, 12 Cush 103. The question then is whether the town of Middleborough had such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial