Burgess v. School District in Uxbridge
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract by an attorney at law on an account with items extending from June 12,1863, to January 22,1864, the first three of which were for professional services rendered in consultations as to the rights of the defendants, and the rest for such services and for expenses and taxable costs in the action of the defendants against Richard D. Mowry and others, the school committee of Uxbridge, which was the subject of the decision reported 9 Allen, 94. Writ dated July 23, 1866.…
Read the full summary
Contract by an attorney at law on an account with items extending from June 12,1863, to January 22,1864, the first three of which were for professional services rendered in consultations as to the rights of the defendants, and the rest for such services and for expenses and taxable costs in the action of the defendants against Richard D. Mowry and others, the school committee of Uxbridge, which was the subject of the decision reported 9 Allen, 94. Writ dated July 23, 1866. Answer, that the services were rendered, and expenses and costs incurred, without the authority of the defendants. At the…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
It is not denied that the defendants had power to prosecute the action against Mowry and others, but it is denied that they gave the plaintiff authority to do so. They chose a prudential committee, and voted to instruct them “ to oak into the rights of said district.” The terms of this vote imply an authority to consult counsel as to their rights ; but not authority to prosecute an action. Nor is the power to prosecute actions incident to the official power of the prudential committee. Their powers are carefully defined in Gen. Sts. c. 39; and this is not included. The cases cited, of Clark…
2Cited by1 opinion
- William W. Drummey, Inc. v. City of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933