Shannon v. Rockwood
| Decision Date | 26 November 1918 |
| Parties | SHANNON et al. v. ROCKWOOD, Mayor, et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.
Petition for mandamus by Andrew Shannon and others, employés 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 the determination of the full court. Petition dismissed.
The ordinance of the city of Cambridge under which petitioners claimed was as follows:
‘In the year one thousand nine hundred and seventeen.
‘An ordinance in amendment of an ordinance entitled ‘Salaries of Laborers.’
‘Be it ordained by the city council of the city of Cambridge as follows:
‘In City Council May 22, 1917.
‘Edward J. Dunphy, President.
‘Executive Department, June 4, 1917.
‘Vetoed.
‘In City Council June 12, 1917.
‘Passed to be ordained over veto.
‘A true copy.
‘Attest: Edward J. Brandon, City Clerk.’
Jas. F. Cavanagh and Philip A. Hendrick, both of Boston, for petitioners.
Peter J. Nelligan and Geo. H. McDermott, both of Boston, for respondents.
The petitioners, five of whom work in the sanitary division and one in the maintenance division of the street department, are employés of the City of Cambridge.
We assume on the record that unless the respondents, who at the date of filing the petition were respectively the mayor, the superintendent of the street department, and the auditor, certified their names with the amount due to the city treasurer, the petitioners could not obtain their wages. The refusal of the respondents to make the necessary certification depends upon the validity of the ordinance enacted by the city council which established a minimum amount for each day's work. The amended city charter is found in St. 1891, c. 364. But the qualified voters having lawfully adopted ‘Plan B’ as provided in St. 1915, c. 267, pt. 3, the powers of government under section 2 were to be exercised as ‘prescribed herein and in part 1.’ Section 8 of part 3, relating to the mayor's approval or veto of every order, ordinance, resolution and vote relating to the affairs of the city passed or adopted by the city council, closes with these words:
‘Nothing in this section contained shall be construed as superseding or in any way affecting any provision of chapter seven hundred ninetteen of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and thirteen.’
The statute referred to is entitled an act relative to municipal indebtedness, and the city of Cambridge is subject to its provisions.
It appears that when the ordinance in question was passed an appropriation for...
To continue reading
Request your trial