Wood v. Cutter

• Decision Date: 17 November 1884
• Citation: 138 Mass. 149
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Franklin P. Wood v. John E. Cutter & others

138 Mass. 149

Franklin P. Wood v. John E. Cutter & others

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

November 17, 1884

Argued November 14, 1884.

Middlesex.

Petition dismissed.

S Hoar, for the petitioner.

R. D Smith & F. C. Nash, for the respondents.

Field & Colburn, JJ., absent. Holmes, J.

OPINION

Holmes, J.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to the school committee of the town of Acton, commanding them to permit the petitioner to perform the duties and receive the emoluments of the office of superintendent of schools. The only facts material to our decision are, that, on April 7, 1884, the town by vote required the school committee to appoint a superintendent (Pub. Sts. c. 44, § 43); that, at a meeting of the school committee held the same day, it was voted to proceed to a formal vote for superintendent; that a majority of the votes cast were for the petitioner, the voting being by ballot; that it was then voted "to reconsider the last vote for superintendent if could do it legally;" and that, at an adjourned meeting, all the members of the board being present, Frederic C. Nash had three votes, the other three members of the board not voting. The votes at this meeting were yea and nay. Nash was duly notified, and has since performed the duties of his office.

We are all of opinion that the petitioner shows no right to the office, and that the writ ought not to issue. This is not the case of a fluctuating body, like a town meeting, nor is it one where the law prescribes a particular mode of voting in the performance of some public duty, as, for instance, the ballot, where it would be open to question whether the power to reconsider, if it were held to exist, would not practically destroy the secrecy intended to be secured. Both these elements concurred in Putnam v. Langley, 133 Mass. 204, and when it was suggested in that case, that perhaps, after a ballot had been taken and the result in favor of a candidate announced and accepted, further action by the same meeting would be ineffectual, the suggestion plainly had reference only to the facts of the case before the court.

Here the mode of voting was determined by the pleasure of the voting body. At the meeting of April 7, it was by ballot; at the adjournment, by yeas and nays. Under these circumstances, no reason has been suggested to us why this vote should not stand on the same footing as any other vote of a deliberative...