Attorney General v. Simonds
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Information by the attorney general in the nature of a quo warranta, alleging that Joseph F. Simonds, Bradley 0. Whitcher and Charlea M. Parker had usurped the office of selectmen of Lexington.
Read the full summary
Information by the attorney general in the nature of a quo warranta, alleging that Joseph F. Simonds, Bradley 0. Whitcher and Charlea M. Parker had usurped the office of selectmen of Lexington. The case, as it appeared from the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts, on which it was heard by Colt, J., and by him reported for the consideration of the full court, was as follows : The town meeting of Lexington was duly called for Monday, March 4,1872, with a proper article in the warrant for the choice of town officers. At the meeting the inhabitants were called to order by the town clerk,…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
The respondents are actually exercising the office of selectmen of Lexington, with an apparent or prima fade right *259to do so. The present suit is against them directly, for the purpose of testing the validity of their right to the office which they claim, and is the appropriate, if not the only, mode in which that question can be finally settled. Frost v. Mayor of Chester, 5 E. & B. 531. Attorney General v. Salem, 103 Mass. 138. Some of the authorities relied upon by the respondents are for this reason but remotely, if at all, applicable to the question in dispute.
The St. of 1863, c. 198,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Attorney General v. City of SalemMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. AllenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Putnam v. LangleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Moloney v. Selectmen of MilfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Haupt v. RogersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Reynolds v. Board of Appeal of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.