Murphy v. City of Brockton

• Citation: 364 Mass. 377,305 N.E.2d 103
• Parties: Arthur R. MURPHY and AIA, & Associates, Inc. v. CITY OF BROCKTON.
• Decision Date: 12 December 1973
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 103

305 N.E.2d 103

364 Mass. 377

Arthur R. MURPHY and AIA, & Associates, Inc. v. CITY OF BROCKTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

Argued Oct. 4, 1973.

Decided Dec. 12, 1973.

Philip M. Cronin, Boston, for plaintiff.

Daniel J. O'Connor, Asst. City Solicitor, for the City of Brockton.

Before TAURO, C.J., and BRAUCHER, HENNESSEY, KAPLAN and WILKINS, JJ.

HENNESSEY, Justice.

This is an appeal from a final decree entered after a hearing in the Superior Court on a petition for declaratory relief. Suit was commenced in the Probate Court for Plymouth County and was removed by the defendant to the Superior Court. The plaintiff, an architectural firm, seeks a declaration of its right to payment under a contract with the defendant city. It was held by the judge that payment would violate G.L. c. 44, § 31, which prohibits any municipal department from incurring liabilities in excess of its appropriations, and that the contract was therefore not binding on the city. ¹ We affirm.

The judge found the facts to be as follows. On February 4, 1970, the School Committee of Brockton requested the mayor and city council to provide money for additions to two schools. The mayor's request of February 20 for an appropriation of $40,000 for preliminary studies was answered by an appropriation in that amount by the council three days later. On March 17 the parties signed a contract for architextural services which was executed in the defendant's behalf by the mayor and the head of the Department of Public Buildings (Department). The contract provided for preliminary and final planning and the supervision of bidding and construction work. It included a schedule of the payments to be made at each stage of competition. ² By this time the city council had also appropriated $100,000 to the 'Schools Renovating' account of the Department; none of this appropriation had been encumbered on March 17, 1970.

The plaintiff's invoice of July 10, 1970, for preliminary work was paid by the city out of the $40,000 appropriation. The mayor's request to the city council for authority to borrow $3,500,000 for the purpose of constructing the two school additions and 'for site work and architectural fees on same' was denied by a vote taken December 28, 1970.

During this time the plaintiff continued in good faith to work under the contract. On December 30, 1970, the plaintiff submitted an invoice for 71% of the basic total fee for work completed to that date. On February 17, 1971, having completed the final pre-bid stage of the work, the plaintiff updated the invoice to request the balance of $101,317 alleged to be due to it. The present suit was brought to secure payment of this sum.

1. The plaintiff advances two reasons why payment under the contract should not be barred by c. 44, § 31. The first contention is that the appropriation of $40,000 to cover part of the defendant's obligation under the contract is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement and bind the city. It is true that this court has upheld the validity of multiple-year municipal contracts and allowed payment despite the lack of an appropriation for a subsequent year, where the contract in question was to fulfill 'constantly recurring duties.' Clarke v. Fall River, 219 Mass. 580, 586, 107 N.E. 419 (1914) (garbarge collection). See also Marble v. Clinton, 298 Mass. 87, 9 N.E.2d 522 (1937) (garbage collection, as to which see G.L. c. 40, § 4); Salisbury Water Supply Co. v. Salisbury, 341 Mass. 42, 167 N.E.2d 320 (1960) ³ (water supply).

These cases are of no help to the plaintiff. While the plaintiff's duties under the contract might continue for more than one year, or even in a sense be said to recur as the time arrived for performance of each phase of the contract, this is not a case of constantly recurring duties within the legal meaning that we have given to that term. Assuming that a latent duty existed to perform this function when the need arose, it could hardly be called a constantly recurring one. The municipal functions covered by contracts in the cases cited by the plaintiff are continuous, requiring for their fulfilment action by the city or contractor day in and day out, permanently. The building of schools is not a function of this type. It is more aptly described as an occasional function, though in a rapidly growing city it might appear to be continual.

It is our conclusion that the plaintiff was obliged to proceed no further with its work under the contract than was covered by an appropriation. Any delay resulting from this limitation would be an inconvenience necessary to enforce the vital policy of c. 44, § 31, 'to set rigid barriers against expenditures in excess of appropriations.' McCarthy v. Malden, 303 Mass. 563, 565, 22 N.E.2d 104, 107 (1939). Duff v. Southbridge, 325 Mass. 224, 228, 90 N.E.2d 12 (1950). Cf. Dyer v. Boston, 272 Mass. 265, 274, 172 N.E. 235, 238 (1930), where it is said that the purpose of such provisions is 'to narrow and limit the powers of public officials in making contracts.' Section 31 is designed to have the salutary effect of preventing the unlawful expenditure of public funds for public contracts and we would be loath to expand any exception to its operation.

2. The plaintiff's second contention is that payment for the work performed could be made out of the $100,000 appropriation to the 'Schools Renovating' account which was passed prior to the signing of the contract and no portion of which had been expended as of that date. The plaintiff argues that G.L. c. 44, § 32, eliminated the need for an itemized budget for a municipal department and that therefore the test should not be the availability of specific items within the departmental budget but the status of unexpended funds in...