West v. Town of Errol
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, signed by selectmen for the town. B., one of the selectmen, sold to the plaintiff state notes belonging to the town, and received full payment therefor. He had no authority by vote of the town to make such sale, and there was no evidence of the receipt by the town of the avails of the sale, unless it may be inferred from subsequent transactions.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, signed by selectmen for the town. B., one of the selectmen, sold to the plaintiff state notes belonging to the town, and received full payment therefor. He had no authority by vote of the town to make such sale, and there was no evidence of the receipt by the town of the avails of the sale, unless it may be inferred from subsequent transactions. Afterwards, all the selectmen, acting as an official board, repurchased the same notes, giving therefor the note in suit, although not authorized by vote of the town to do so. The avails of the notes thus purchased…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
Although selectmen are not regarded as the general agents of a town, “ clothed with the general powers of the corporate body for which they act” (Rich v. Errol, 51 N. H. 350, 354), there are, nevertheless, cases in which they may bind the town by a promissory note. Sanborn v. Deerfield, 2 N. H. 251; Andover v. Grafton, 7 N. H. 298; Carlton v. Bath, 22 N. H. 565; Sharon v. Salisbury, 29 Conn. 113; Willey v. Greenfield, 30 Me. 452. They have no authority, without a vote of the town, to borrow money upon its credit— Rich v. Errol, 51 N. H. 350; still, the holder of a note given for money…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Town of Sharon v. Town of SalisburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1860
- Willey v. Inhabitants of GreenfieldSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
3Cited by2 opinions
- Canaan v. Grafton CountySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1888
- Abbott v. Wolfeborough Savings BankSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895