Sevigny v. Lizotte
| Decision Date | 05 July 1927 |
| Citation | 260 Mass. 296,157 N.E. 594 |
| Parties | SEVIGNY v. LIZOTTE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Bristol County.
Mandamus proceeding by Charles E. Sevigny against Alfred J. Lizotte and others. On petitioner's exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
John W. Cummings, John B. Cummings, and John T. Farrell, all of Fall River, for petitioner.
Baker, Seagrave & Terry, of Fall River, for respondents.
[1] This is a petition for a writ of mandamus. The petitioner, a citizen and taxpayer of the city of Fall River, contends that he is entitled to the office of auditor of that city. Confessedly he held that office until the first Monday of March, 1927. He brings this petition against the first named defendant, who also contends that he is the auditor of that city by election for a term beginning with said first Monday of March. The petitioner joins as defendant one Russell and the members of the board of aldermen of the city of Fall River. His contention is that, although the defendant Lizotte was elected to the office of city auditor by a majority vote of the members of the board of aldermen, as shown by the records of that board, that election is illegal for the reason that one of the votes for the defendant Lizotte was cast by the defendant Russell who, the petitioner claims, was not a member of the board of aldermen, and that therefore the election of the respondent is void and that the petitioner is entitled to hold office until his successor is legally chosen. The sole basis of the petitioner's claim is that Russell had no right to act as alderman.
[2][3] A judgment in favor of the petitioner would not remove Russell from office. His right to the office of alderman can only be tried in a proper proceeding brought to determine his title. It is a rule of general application that the title to a political office cannot be impeached collaterally. It was said in Attorney General v. Crocker, 138 Mass. 214, 221:
‘Public necessity and policy require that the acts of an actual incumbent of a public office, in the performance of its duties, shall be held valid, although the incumbent should not have a legal right to the office, and though his right should be questioned and disputed.’
To the same effect are Fowler v. Bebee, 9 Mass. 231, 6 Am. Dec. 62; Petersilea v. Stone, 119 Mass. 465, 20 Am. Rep. 335; Prince v. Boston, 148 Mass. 287, 19 N. E. 218;Moloney v. Selectmen of Milford, 253...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Authority
...923, cert. denied, 302 U.S. 683, 58 S.Ct. 50, 82 L.Ed. 527, and 302 U.S. 759, 58 S.Ct. 370, 82 L.Ed. 587 (1937); Sevigny v. Lizotte, 260 Mass. 296, 157 N.E. 594 (1927). The purpose of this rule is to ensure that public officials have a full opportunity to defend against a challenge in a pro......
-
Commonwealth v. Di Stasio
...v. Wotton, 201 Mass. 81, 84, 87 N.E. 202;Moloney v. Selectmen of Milford, 253 Mass. 400, 406, 407, 149 N.E. 317;Sevigny v. Lizotte, 260 Mass. 296, 157 N.E. 594. It is a widely accepted rule that the authority of a judge who is acting de facto in the performance of the functions of his offic......
-
City of Lawrence v. MacDonald
...Case, 122 Mass. 445, 23 Am.Rep. 374;Moloney v. Selectmen of Town of Milford, 253 Mass. 400, 406, 407, 149 N.E. 317;Sevigny v. Lizotte, 260 Mass. 296, 157 N.E. 594;Commonwealth v. DiStasio, 297 Mass. 347, 350, 351, 8 N.E.2d 923, 113 A.L.R. 1133. The present case is not to be confused with ca......
-
Barnes v. Peck
...facto officers and their title is not open to attack in these proceedings. Prince v. Boston, 148 Mass. 285, 19 N. E. 218;Sevigny v. Lizotte, 260 Mass. 296, 157 N. E. 594. The finding of the master is categorical to the effect that the defendant caused to be recorded as to the lands here inv......