Sampson v. Treasurer and Receiver General

• Decision Date: 18 February 1933
• Citation: 282 Mass. 119
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: EDWIN R. SAMPSON & others v. TREASURER AND RECEIVER GENERAL.

282 Mass. 119

EDWIN R. SAMPSON & others v. TREASURER AND RECEIVER GENERAL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 18, 1933

January 11, 1933.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., PIERCE, WAIT DONAHUE, & LUMMUS, JJ.

Metropolitan District Commission. South Metropolitan Sewerage District. Weymouth. Municipal Corporations, Officers and agents. Statute, Construction, Acceptance. By the provisions of Section 6 of St. 1930, c. 419, admitting the town of

Weymouth to the south metropolitan sewerage district, that the act should take effect "upon its acceptance by a majority of the town meeting members of the town of Weymouth present and voting thereon at a meeting legally called for the purpose not later than" May 1, 1931, the power of acceptance was conferred solely upon the town meeting members, without their action being subject to a referendum vote of the town under St. 1921, c. 61; and a vote of a majority of the town meeting members at a meeting duly held on March 4, 1931, in favor of accepting said c. 419, was a sufficient acceptance thereof notwithstanding that a referendum vote of the town was taken on April 13, 1931, and a majority of the voters then voted to reject the act.

TWO PETITIONS for writs of mandamus, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on January 18, 1932. Also a

PETITION for a writ of certiorari, filed in that court on the same date. Each of the petitions contained allegations that the petitioners were the treasurer and the assessors of the town of Weymouth; that the metropolitan district commission, under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 92, Sections 5, 6, 7, had determined a certain sum as that which said town should pay to the Commonwealth as a member of the south metropolitan sewerage district; that the Treasurer and Receiver General had deducted said sum from moneys otherwise payable to the town by the Commonwealth; that the town had never become a member of the south metropolitan sewerage district; that the determination by the metropolitan district commission was void; and that the petitioners were hindered in the performance of their duties by the commission's action. The prayer of the first petition was for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay over to the petitioner Sampson, as treasurer of the town, the sum so withheld. The prayer of the second petition was for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to omit any charges against the town in determining the expenses of the south metropolitan sewerage district.

Material facts are stated in the opinion. The cases were reserved by Wait, J., for determination by the full court.

The cases were submitted on briefs. K. L. Nash, for the petitioners.

J. E. Warner, Attorney General, & E.

T. Simoneau, Assistant Attorney General, for the respondents.

WAIT, J. These three proceedings have a common purpose. They challenge the propriety of action of the State Treasurer and of the metropolitan district commission with regard to the town of Weymouth, in dealing with it as a member of the south metropolitan sewerage district. The merits of the controversy will be settled by the decision of a single issue. We accordingly address ourselves to that issue; we set to one side and do not pass upon questions of procedure and of right to institute and maintain the petitions of mandamus and of certiorari which present the issue. "In any event the ultimate decision must be against the . . . [petitioners] and in such case there seems to be no objection to stating the grounds of substantive law which support the result." Commonwealth v. McNary, 246 Mass. 46, 48.

If the town has become a member of the south metropolitan sewerage system, the metropolitan district commission by virtue of St. 1930, c. 419, and of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 92, Sections 5, 6, and 7, has acted within its powers, and the conduct of the State Treasurer is justified. St. 1930, c. 419, Section 5. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 92, Section 8; c. 29, Section 17. Lowell v. Oliver, 8 Allen, 247, 258.

The Legislature by St. 1930, c. 419, admitted Weymouth to the south metropolitan sewerage district and imposed obligations upon it. It further provided by Section 6: "This act shall take effect upon its acceptance by a majority of the town meeting members of the town of Weymouth present and voting thereon at a meeting legally called for the purpose, not later than May first, nineteen hundred and thirty-one." The act was approved May 29, 1930. There is no dispute that the actions of the commission and of the State Treasurer are authorized by the terms of the statute; and that, at a meeting legally called for the purpose, the town meeting members of the town, on March 4, 1931, accepted the act by a vote of one hundred twenty-two members in the affirmative and twenty-four members in the negative. Nor is it denied that, acting in reliance upon

St. 1921, c.

61, which provided for precinct voting, representative town meetings, town meeting members, a referendum and an annual moderator in the town of Weymouth, a referendum vote was taken in the town on April 13, 1931, at which seven hundred eighty-one voted in favor of accepting and eighteen hundred fifty-two in favor of rejecting the act.

The decisive issue therefore, is whether the statute has been...