Yunitz v. City of Chelsea
| Citation | 270 Mass. 179,169 N.E. 792 |
| Parties | YUNITZ v. CITY OF CHELSEA. |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1930 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Frederick J. MacLeod, Judge.
Action by Esther M. Yunitz against the City of Chelsea. Verdict was directed for plaintiff. On report from the Superior Court. Verdict set aside, and judgment entered for defendant.
J. L. Murphy, of Boston, for plaintiff.
C. Richmond, of Boston, for defendant.
This case was tried in the Superior Court before a judge and jury. It comes before us by report. There was ‘an agreement as to all the material facts,’ the parties having signed what is termed ‘Statement of the Facts.’ Apparently this was intended to be a case stated. Frati v. Jannini, 226 Mass. 430, 115 N. E. 746. So far as relevant to the determination of the questions of law presented those facts are: In April, 1926, pursuant to requisition under the civil service laws, the acting superintendent of public buildings of the defendant appointed the plaintiff telephone operator to be employed in the city hall. She continued to perform duties as such telephone operator for the defendant until January 19, 1927, when she was notified in writing by the mayor of the defendant city that she was removed from that position because the position had been abolished. She seasonably requested of the mayor a public hearing. Her request was duly granted. A hearing was held before the mayor at which the plaintiff was represented by counsel and testimony was presented in her behalf. At this hearing the superintendent of public buildings took no part and he held no hearig. Shortly after the hearing the mayor notified the plaintiff in writing that he found the position of telephone operator no longer necessary and declared it abolished on grounds of economy. This was approved in writing by the superintendent of public buildings. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a petition in the District Court of Chelsea asking for a review of this action of the mayor. Hearing was duly held and the finding made that the decision of the mayor was affirmed. The plaintiff then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash these proceedings of the District Court, which was dismissed after hearing. Then the plaintiff brought this action of contract to recover wages alleged to have been lost by her by reason of having been denied employment in the service of the defendant. Ransom v. Boston, 196 Mass. 248, 81 N. E. 998.
The mayor had power under the charter of the defendant city to abolish the position of telephone operator in the city hall because unnecessary, provided he acted in good faith and with a genuine purpose to practice economy for the general welfare. Garvey v. Lowell, 199 Mass. 47, 85 N. E. 182,127 Am. St. Rep. 468. By the city charter, St. 1911, c. 680, pt. 2, § 50, the mayor is the chief executive officer of the defendant city and exercises all executive powers of the city either personally or through the several...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v. Justice of the Dist. Court of Springfield
...now reviewable. Commissioner of Public Works of Quincy v. Judge of District Court, 258 Mass. 444, 445, 155 N.E. 431;Yunitz v. Chelsea, 270 Mass. 179, 182, 169 N.E. 792;Commissioner of Institutions of Boston v. Justices of the Municipal Court, 290 Mass. 460, 195 N.E. 783. (a) There was no er......
-
Barnard v. City of Lynn
... ... was recognized in Garvey v. Lowell, 199 Mass. 47, 85 ... N.E. 182,127 Am.St.Rep. 468,Smith v. New Bedford, ... 269 Mass. 345, 168 N.E. 806,Yunitz v. Chelsea, 270 ... Mass. 179, 169 N.E. 792,McDonald v. City Manager of Fall ... River, 273 Mass. 368, 173 N.E. 593,Whalen v. City ... Forester of ... ...
-
Selectmen of Town of Milton v. Judge of Dist. Court of East Norfolk
...the absence of evidence that the ordinance was passed in bad faith or as a mere device to get rid of the petitioner. In Yunitz v. Chelsea, 270 Mass. 179, 169 N. E. 792, the plaintiff's position was abolished by the mayor on grounds of economy, and after hearing under the civil service law h......
-
City of Gloucester v. Civil Service Com'n
...9 N.E.2d 566 (1937); McCabe v. Judge of the Dist. Court of Lowell, 277 Mass. 55, 57-58, 177 N.E. 857 (1931); Yunitz v. Chelsea, 270 Mass. 179, 181, 169 N.E. 792 (1930); Gardner v. Lowell, 221 Mass. 150, 154, 108 N.E. 937 (1915); Commissioner of Health & Hosps. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 23 Mass......