City of Taunton v. County of Bristol
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, by the city of Taunton against the county of Bristol, under St. 1910, c. 629, amending R. L. c. 102, § 143, as previously amended, to recover $159 which the plaintiff had paid to one Leahy for fifty-three days’ service as dog officer at the rate of $3 a day. Writ in the First District Court of Bristol dated January 25, 1911. On appeal to the Superior Court the case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts to Fox, J., sitting without a jury.
Read the full summary
Contract, by the city of Taunton against the county of Bristol, under St. 1910, c. 629, amending R. L. c. 102, § 143, as previously amended, to recover $159 which the plaintiff had paid to one Leahy for fifty-three days’ service as dog officer at the rate of $3 a day. Writ in the First District Court of Bristol dated January 25, 1911. On appeal to the Superior Court the case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts to Fox, J., sitting without a jury. It was agreed that Leahy was appointed a dog officer of the plaintiff on July 26, 1910, and that he qualified as such dog officer on that…
1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.
The St. of 1910, c. 629, having been approved June 15, 1910, did not take effect until thirty days thereafter. R. L. c. 8, § 1. But, the requirement that appointments under it must be made within ten days from July 1 of each year being directory, the action of the mayor on July 26, 1910, appointing Leahy as a constable to kill or cause to be killed unlicensed dogs was valid. If the statute were mandatory, as the defendant contends, no appointments for the current year would have been possible, and this result plainly was not intended by the Legislature. Whitney v. Whitney, 14 Mass. 88, 92, 93.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Whitney v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- O'Neill v. County of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ray v. Registrars of VotersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915