Wood v. Jewell
| Decision Date | 17 January 1881 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Marshall Wood & another v. John L. Jewell & another |
Middlesex. Tort against John L. Jewell and Edmund M. Stowe, for breaking and entering the plaintiffs' close in Hudson, and removing the soil therefrom. Jewell justified, as superintendent of roads and highways acting under the road commissioners, and Stowe justified as a road commissioner and each alleged that he entered upon the land in the discharge of the duties of his respective office. Trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., who, after a verdict for the defendants, reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows:
The trespass complained of was an entry upon the plaintiffs' land in 1874, for the purpose of constructing a way laid out by the road commissioners of the defendant town. No objection was made to the proceedings of the commissioners, if they were legally elected, and the legality of their election depended upon the following facts:
On April 6, 1874, the annual town meeting of the inhabitants of Hudson was held under a warrant duly served, article 2 of which was as follows: "To choose all necessary town officers for the year ensuing." Article 19 of the warrant was as follows: "To see if the town will accept the provisions of chapter 158 of the Acts of the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the year 1871, in reference to the election of a board of road commissioners and the provisions of chapter 51 of the Acts of 1873 amendatory of the former acts, or do or act anything thereon." At this meeting the town, under article 2 elected the officers that were the "necessary town officers" at the time of the drawing of the warrant; and, after acting under several other articles in the warrant, "voted to take up article 19," and under it "voted to accept and adopt the provisions therein named." Subsequently, at the same meeting, Edmund M. Stowe, William F. Trowbridge and David B. Goodale were elected and qualified as road commissioners for one, two and three years respectively.
On these facts the judge directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants. If the direction was correct, judgment was to be entered on the verdict; otherwise, a new trial to be granted.
Judgment on the verdict.
W. B. Gale & J. P. Gale, for the plaintiffs.
T. H. Sweetser & J. T. Joslin, for the defendants.
The articles in a warrant for a town meeting are generally inartificially drawn, and are not to be subject to a rigid construction. It is sufficient if they indicate with substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Burlington v. Dunn
...Met. 35, 40-41. Grover v. Pembroke, 11 Allen, 88, 89. Sherman v. Torrey, 99 Mass. 472 . Whitney v. Stow, 111 Mass. 368 , 370. Wood v. Jewell, 130 Mass. 270 , 271. Matthews v. Westborough, 131 Mass. 521 , 522, 523. Coffin v. Lawrence, 143 Mass. 110 . Tuckerman v. Moynihan, 282 Mass. 562 , 56......
-
Noonan v. Selectmen of Brookline
...however, that the vote was within the scope of the article. See G.L. c. 39, § 10 (as amended through St.1959, c. 64, § 1); Wood v. Jewell, 130 Mass. 270, 271; Town of Burlington v. Dunn, 318 Mass. 216, 219, 61 N.E.2d 243, 168 A.L.R. 3. The respondent board's answer contains a prayer by way ......
-
Fish v. Town of Canton
... ... business to be acted on. Haven v. Lowell, ... [322 Mass. 224] ... 5 Met. 35. Wood ... v. Jewell, 130 Mass. 270 ... Matthews v ... Westborough, 131 Mass. 521." Coffin v ... Lawrence, 143 Mass. 110 , 112. Tuckerman v ... ...
-
Fish v. Town of Canton
...taken. It did not ‘indicate with substantial certainty the nature of the business to be acted on. Haven v. Lowell, 5 Metc. 35;Wood v. Jewell, 130 Mass. 270; Matthews v. Westborough, 131 Mass. § 521.’ Coffin v. Lawrence, 143 Mass. 110, 112, 9 N.E. 6, 8.Tuckerman v. Moynihan, 282 Mass. 562, 5......