Lucia v. Water and Sewer Com'rs of Medford

• Decision Date: 04 April 1955
• Citation: 332 Mass. 468,125 N.E.2d 776
• Parties: Charles A. LUCIA et al. v. WATER AND SEWER COMMISSIONERS OF MEDFORD et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 776

125 N.E.2d 776

332 Mass. 468

Charles A. LUCIA et al. v. WATER AND SEWER COMMISSIONERS OF MEDFORD et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued March 8, 1955.

Decided April 4, 1955.

James McCaffrey, Boston, for petitioners.

Mark E. Gallagher, Jr., City Sol., Boston, for defendants.

Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, WILKINS and WILLIAMS, JJ.

RONAN, Justice.

This is a report as to the correctness of his ruling made by a judge of the Superior Court in sustaining a demurrer to a petition for a writ of certiorari brought by thirteen residents and taxpayers of Medford against the water and sewer commissioners of said city and against the city manager of said city seeking to quash the water rates alleged to have been established by the city manager.

The petition alleges that the city is a member of the metropolitan water district in accordance with G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 92, § 10, as appearing in St.1945, c. 587, § 1, as amended, that the respondent water and sewer commissioners, hereinafter called the board, have the supervision and control of the water sources, water, and waterworks owned and used by the city, and that, with the approval of the respondent city manager, they have the authority to fix and determine, subject to the further approval of the metropolitan district commission, the rates to be charged in said city for water supplied to water takers therein, all as provided by G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 92, § 27. The petition further alleges that the board submitted to the city manager for his approval a schedule of the proposed rates but that he refused to approve such rates and instead sent to the board another schedule showing in some instances increased rates, and that the board is charging the rates shown in the schedule prepared by the city manager. The petition prayed that the rates fixed by the city manager be declared null and void and that the board be ordered to fix and determine the rates without his approval.

The demurrer sets forth various grounds, the validity of each of which is open upon the report, and the action of the judge may be sustained on a ground different from that upon which his decision was based, Daddario v. City of Pittsfield, 301 Mass. 552, 554, 17 N.E.2d 894; Damiano v. National Grange Mutual Liability Co., 316 Mass. 626, 628, 56 N.E.2d 18, 153 A.L.R. 1402; and the demurrer should be sustained if any ground assigned is sufficient to show that the petition for a writ of certiorari is defective. Hiller v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 324 Mass. 24, 25, 84 N.E.2d 548; Hendrick v. West Roxbury Co-operative Bank, 325 Mass. 671, 672-673, 92 N.E.2d 238. The report states that the following occurred at the hearing on the demurrer: 'At a hearing on the within demurrer and for the purpose of decision hereon the petitioners admitted that the defendant Shurtleff is the city manager of the respondent city (see c. 43, §§ 103 and 104) upon consideration thereof the within demurrer is sustained.' That admission for what it was worth was binding upon the petitioners. Brocklesby v. City of Newton, 294 Mass. 41, 200 N.E. 351; Dalton v. Post Publishing Co., 328 Mass. 595, 599, 105 N.E.2d 385. It was consistent with the allegation that the rates were subject to the approval of the city manager and...