Shannon v. Mayor of Cambridge
| Decision Date | 26 November 1918 |
| Citation | 231 Mass. 322 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | ANDREW SHANNON & others v. MAYOR OF CAMBRIDGE & others. |
November 14, 1918.
Present: RUGG, C J., LORING, BRALEY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.
Municipal Corporations, Municipal indebtedness act. Cambridge. Mandamus.
The mayor, the superintendent of streets and the auditor of a city that has adopted the Plan B form of government provided for in St 1915, c. 267,
Part III, subject to St. 1913, c. 719, called the municipal indebtedness act are right in refusing to approve the alleged wages of certain city laborers claimed by them under an ordinance attempted to be passed by the city council raising the rate of the wages of the classes of laborers in question beyond the amount provided for by the budget for the fiscal year in violation of Section 20 of the municipal indebtedness act.
In a petition by certain laborers in the employ of the city of Cambridge for a writ of mandamus to compel the mayor, the superintendent of streets and the auditor of that city to certify to the city treasurer the wages of the petitioners at an increased rate attempted to be established by an ordinance passed by the city council of that city in violation of the provisions of the municipal indebtedness act contained in St. 1913, c. 719 Section 20, it was said that, as the petition must be dismissed, it was not necessary to consider whether, if the petitioners had been entitled to the wages claimed by them, they could have sued for such wages in actions of contract so that they would not have needed, nor have been entitled to, the writ of mandamus sought.
PETITION, filed on December 10, 1917, by six persons employed as laborers in the street department of the city of Cambridge, for a writ of mandamus directed to the mayor, the superintendent of streets and the auditor of that city commanding them to certify the names of the petitioners to the city treasurer for the payment of wages at the minimum rate of $3 a day as established by an ordinance alleged to have been passed by the city council over the veto of the mayor on June 12, 1917.
The answer of the respondents set up the invalidity of the alleged ordinance and also alleged, among other matters, that the petitioners, if entitled to their alleged wages, had a plain and adequate remedy by actions at law and that there was no occasion for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court by issuing its writ of mandamus.
The case was submitted upon the petition, the answer and an agreed statement of facts to De Courcy, J., who, at the request of the parties, reserved it for determination by the full court.
The case was submitted on briefs.
J. F. Cavanagh & P.
A. Hendrick, for the petitioners.
P. J. Nelligan & G.
H. McDermott, for the respondents.
The petitioners, five of whom work in the sanitary division and one in the maintenance division of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shannon v. Rockwood
...231 Mass. 322121 N.E. 31SHANNON et al.v.ROCKWOOD, Mayor, et al.Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.Nov. 26, 1918 ... Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.Petition for us by Andrew Shannon and others, employs of the city of Cambridge, working in the street department, against Wendell D. Rockwood, Mayor, and others. On report by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for ... ...