Bedford v. Rice
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Debt, to recover a penalty for violating the regulations of the plaintiffs’ health officers, forbidding the maintenance of a nuisance. At the annual meeting of the town no health officers were chosen; and in July of the same year, the selectmen, on the ground that the office was vacant, appointed a board of three health officers, who made and published regulations for the health of the public.
Read the full summary
Debt, to recover a penalty for violating the regulations of the plaintiffs’ health officers, forbidding the maintenance of a nuisance. At the annual meeting of the town no health officers were chosen; and in July of the same year, the selectmen, on the ground that the office was vacant, appointed a board of three health officers, who made and published regulations for the health of the public. They ordered the defendant to remove the nuisance complained of, and, on refusal, directed this suit to be brought. The defendant claimed that there was no legal board of health officers, and that their…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The plaintiff town having chosen no health officers, the selectmen were, by law, such officers. Gen. St., c. 37, s. 4. In case of a vacancy in the office the selectmen could appoint. Gen. St., c. 39, s. 1. By appointing others to the office the selectmen resigned it, and a vacancy existed which was filled by the appointment.
It was sufficient that the persons appointed were health officers de facto. They were not parties to the suit, and the rights of the public and third persons were in question, and the title to the office could not be contested in this case. Tucker v. Aiken, 7 N. H. 113,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1871
- Brown v. O'ConnellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1870
3Cited by1 opinion
- State Ex Rel. Wood v. HadleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1887