Quinn v. City of Cambridge

• Decision Date: 03 March 1905
• Parties: QUINN v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

187 Mass. 507

73 N.E. 661

QUINN v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

March 3, 1905

COUNSEL

Francis

J. Carney, for petitioner.

Gilbt.

A. A Pevey, for respondent.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash an assessment of betterments upon the estate of the petitioner, resulting from the widening of Belmont street in Cambridge. The only ground of objection to the assessment is that it was not made within two years from the passage of the original order, as it should have been under Pub. St. 1882 c. 51, § 1. The common council concurred with the board of aldermen in adopting the order on December 12, 1900, and the mayor approved it on December 24th. The assessment was made on December 17, 1902, and the question is whether the order widening the street took effect at the time of the vote of the common council in concurrence with the aldermen of at the time of the approval by the mayor. The statute upon which the decision of the question depends is the charter of the city of Cambridge (St. 1891, p. 931, c. 364), as amended by St 1896, p. 121, c. 173. Section 16 of the first mentioned act declares that 'the city council shall have exclusive authority, subject to the veto power of the mayor, to lay out, alter, discontinue or fix the grade of any highway street or town way,' etc. This veto power is given in section 11 of the same chapter, which provides that 'every ordinance, order, resolution of vote to which concurrence of the board of aldermen and the common council may be necessary, * * * and every order of either branch, involving an expenditure of money, shall be presented to the mayor.' If he approves, he is to signify his approval by signing; and, if not, he is to return it, with his objections, to the branch in which it originated. It may then be passed, notwithstanding his objections, by a two-thirds vote taken by yeas and nays. If it is so passed, it is to be in force. If the mayor fails to return it within 10 days after it is presented to him, it is to be in force. Under these sections an order of the city council cannot take effect until after the mayor has approved it, or returned it with objections, or has allowed 10 days to pass without such action after it has been presented to him. Until then it is uncertain whether it will ever be in force. If he approves, it takes effect from the time of his approval; if he...