Cousins v. Manchester
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for compensation as a fireman. Facts agreed. In February, 1890, tbe plaintiff was appointed a fireman by the board of mayor and aldermen of Manchester, upon the written presentation of the board of fire engineers, as provided by the ordinances of the city, and served as such in good faith during the year next ensuing, without objection by the defendant. At the time of his appointment he was a member of the common council of the city.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam. *
Whether the board of mayor and aldermen of Manchester could legally appoint the firemen upon the presentation or nomination of the board of fire engineers, need not be decided. See G. L., c. 106, s. 13; Attorney-General v. Lowell, ante, p. 198. If they were authorized to exercise that power, it is claimed that the plaintiff’s title is defective because it is provided, in s. 2, a. 48, Gen. Laws, that “ no person shall be elected' by the city councils, or appointed by the mayor and aldermen, to any office of profit, who at the time of such election or appointment is a member of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mayfield v. MooreIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- McCue v. County of WapelloSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Matthews v. Board of SupervisorsMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Naylor v. CarterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
- Territory Ex Rel. Sylva v. MoritaHawaii Supreme Court · 1955