Attorney General v. Dole
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Information in the nature of quo warranto, filed April 12, 1897, for the purpose of trying the title by which the defendants claim to have been elected to the office of selectmen of the town of Newbury. The case was heard by Barker, J., who dismissed the information, and reported the case for the consideration of the full court. The material facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
At the annual meeting of the inhabitants of Newbury held on March 2, 1897, it was within the power of the town to choose three, five, seven, or nine selectmen. St. 1893, c. 417, § 266. The vote under article fifth of the warrant, “ To proceed to choose three selectmen, all on one ballot,” was a determination by the town that the number should be three. Commonwealth v. Wentworth, 145 Mass. 50. It was within the power of the town to reconsider this vote, and to make the number larger at any time before the meeting was dissolved. The adjourned meeting held on March 16 was a continuation of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Attorney General v. SimondsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Mason v. School District No. 14Supreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Reed v. Inhabitants of ActonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Commonwealth v. WentworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
3Cited by2 opinions
- Coleman v. LouisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- McQuesten v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905