Pearsons v. Ranlett
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Mandamus on the petition of William B. 0. Pearsons and four others, representing themselves as a majority of the board of water commissioners of the town of Holyoke.
Read the full summary
Mandamus on the petition of William B. 0. Pearsons and four others, representing themselves as a majority of the board of water commissioners of the town of Holyoke. The writ set forth that the act to supply the town of Holyoke with fresh water (St. 1872, e. 62, which in §§ 2, 3, provides for the taking of water and land and the construction of waterworks) was duly accepted by the town at a legal meeting, and at the same meeting said commissioners with John Delaney, were duly elected water commissioners, and, with the respondent, who then and still was the town treasurer, constituted the…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
This" case comes before us upon a demurrer to the return of the respondent to an alternative wri* of mandamus, issued upon the petition of a majority of the board of water commissioners of the town of Holyoke.
A majority of the court is of opinion that a peremptory writ of mandamus should issue. The object of the petition is to compel the respondent to deliver into the hands and custody of the board of water commissioners the water bonds signed by the treasurer and countersigned by the chairman of the selectmen, under the “ Act to supply the town of Holyoke with pure water.” St. 1872, e. 62;
The…
2Cited by15 opinions
- W.D. Yett, Mayor v. CookTexas Supreme Court · 1926
- Brewster v. ShermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Brooks v. Secretary of the CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Boody v. WatsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Kaplan v. BowkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.