Rockwood v. City of Cambridge

• Decision Date: 17 October 1917
• Citation: 117 N.E. 312,228 Mass. 249
• Parties: ROCKWOOD v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

228 Mass. 249

117 N.E. 312

ROCKWOOD

v.CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Oct. 17, 1917.

Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Jabez Fox, Judge.

Action by Wendell D. Rockwood against the City of Cambridge. On report. Judgment for plaintiff.

Franklin T. Hammond, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Jos. W. Bartlett, Fredk. E. Jennings, and Arthur T. Smith, all of Boston, for defendant.

LORING, J.

In November, 1915, the defendant city adopted the second of the four charters which the several cities of the Commonwealth (outside of Boston) by force of St. 1915, c. 267, were given permission to adopt. In December, 1915, the plaintiff was elected and on the first Monday of January, 1916, he qualified as mayor under the new charter. Acting under section 7 of the new charter (St. 1915, c. 267, pt. 3) the new city council on March 21, 1916, adopted an ordinance determining that the salary of the mayor should be $5,000 a year and that it should begin on the first Monday of January, 1916. On the defendant refusing to pay the salary to established this action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the salary then due him for his first year of service. ¹

The defense set up is that the ordinance of March 21, 1916, is void. This contention is based on the fact that an ordinance was adopted by the old city council in 1892 establishing the salary of the incumbent of the former office of mayor at $3,500 and upon the further fact that it is provided by section 4, part 1, St. 1915, c. 267, that:

‘All ordinances * * * existing at the time when such city adopts a plan of government set forth in this act shall continue in full force and effect until annulled, repealed, modified or superseded.’

The contention of the defendant is that by force of section 4, part 1, St. 1915, c. 267, the new mayor's salary was established at $3,500 when the plaintiff came into office and that the clause of section 7, part 3, which provides that the mayor's ‘salary shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he is elected’ prevented the new city council from increasing the amount of the salary so established.

The contention cannot be upheld. When in November, 1915, the defendant city adopted the second of the four plans of government set forth in part 3, St. 1915, c. 267, a new system of government came into effect, Cunningham v. Cambridge, 222 Mass. 574, 577, 111 N. E. 409, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1100; and the office of mayor under the new system of government (which came into effect then) though called by the same name was a new office, Donaghy v. Macy, 167 Mass. 178, 45 N. E. 87.In that new office the old city council had a passing interest at the most. It was the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 7, part 3, to provide that the salary for services to be performed by the incumbent of the new office should be determined by the new city council and that the salary so established should not be increased or diminished during the term for which the incumbent had been elected. It is plain that in enacting section 4, part 1, it was not the intention of the Legislature to modify in any way the authority given to the new city council by section 7, part 3. The purpose of section 4, part 1, was to bridge over the interim between the repeal of an old charter (by the adoption of one of the four charters set forth in St. 1915, c. 267) and such time as action was taken under the new charter with respect to those matters of city government which are ordinarily provided for by ordinances, resolutions and orders. When St. 1915, c. 267, was enacted the salary to be received by the mayor was established in case of some cities by a provision in the charters of those cities while it was provided in the charters of the other cities that the mayor's salary should be...