Smart v. Town of Johnston
| Decision Date | 09 July 1892 |
| Citation | 24 A. 830,17 R.I. 778 |
| Parties | SMART v. TOWN OF JOHNSTON. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Bill in equity by Anthony Smart against the town of Johnston for an injunction and an account. Demurrer thereto sustained.
Ambrose Feely, for complainant.
Andrew B. Patton, for respondent.
The court is of the opinion that the demurrer should be sustained. The bill is brought against the town of Johnston to restrain it from proceeding to lay out, establish, and open a certain public highway therein; for an account as to damages already done; and for general relief. But it does not show that said town in its corporate capacity has taken any steps in the matter of the lay out and other proceedings complained of, but on the contrary it shows that all of said proceedings have been taken by the town council of said town, their officers and servants. And it is clear that under the provisions of Pub. St. R. I. c. 64, a town in its corporate capacity has no power to lay out, alter, or establish a highway, but that such power is conferred exclusively upon the town council, and that over their action in this matter the town has no control, and cannot be held responsible, at any rate, for their unauthorized acts. Donnelly v. Tripp, 12 R. I. 97. Moreover, town councils are not the agents nor the servants of the various towns which they represent, in the ordinary legal meaning of that term, in the laying out of highways; but they are public, officials, forming an important part of the government, and clothed with certain well-defined powers, and charged with certain well-defined duties, by the statute law of the state. For any abuse of there powers, and for any failure in the performance of these duties, they are liable like any other public officials. The complainant, therefore, has no ground upon which to base this suit, the party who caused the damage complained of, according to his own showing, being the town council of said town, its officers and servants, and not the town itself. Demurrer sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Potter v. Calumet Elec. St. Ry. Co.
... ... construct and operate a street railroad within any city, ... town, or incorporated village, without requiring the consent ... of the local authorities having ... N.E. 446, 32 L.R.A. 610; Hall v. Concord, 71 N.H ... 367, 52 A. 864, 58 L.R.A. 455; Smart v. Johnston, 17 ... R.I. 778, 24 A. 830; City Ry. Co. v. Citizens' St ... Ry. Co., 166 U.S. 557, ... ...
-
Mathewson v. Hawkins
...297; Walcot v. Swampscott, 1 Allen, 101; City of Detroit v. Blackeby, 21 Mich. 84; Aldrich v. Tripp, 11 R. I. 141; Smart v. Town of Johnston, 17 R. I. 778, 24 Atl. 830; Dodge v. Granger, 17 R. I. 664, 24 Atl. 100; Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) § 974. See, also, sections 4 and 5 as to power of ......
-
Westerly Waterworks Co. v. Town of Westerly
...(Gen. Laws, c. 36, Sec. 1): 'The inhabitants of every town shall continue to be a body corporate,' etc. In the case of Smart v. Town of Johnston, 17 R.I. 778, 24 A. 830, it was said of the powers of town councils in highways, what might also have been said in relation to the granting of the......
-
Briggs v. Allen
...town itself had no such authority, but only the town council thereof, and that only in the manner provided by statute. Smart v. Town of Johnston, 17 R. I. 778, 24 Atl. 830. The acts complained of, then, not having been authorized by the defendant town or by the town council thereof, and not......