Muldoon v. City of Lowell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover the sum of $222 for services performed by the plaintiff for the city of Lowell when employed as an inspector by the chief of the department of supplies of that city.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover the sum of $222 for services performed by the plaintiff for the city of Lowell when employed as an inspector by the chief of the department of supplies of that city. Writ dated May 20, 1899. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Lilley, J., the following facts were admitted or proved: That Andrew E. Barrett, who employed the plaintiff, was the duly elected, qualified and acting chief of the department of supplies of the city of Lowell under St. 1896, c. 415, § 3, and continued to hold that office up to the time of the trial; that, assuming to act for and on behalf of…
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.
The only question is whether Barrett, the chief of the department of supplies, had the power as such to hire the plaintiff. The first objection to the validity of the appointment urged by the defendant is that the services which the plaintiff was hired to perform were not within the scope of the department of supplies as set forth in St. 1896, c. 415, § 3, which, so far as material to this point, is as follows: “ There shall be a department of supplies, and all material and supplies for the city shall be purchased by the chief or head of such department, subject to the approval of the mayor.…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Fluet v. McCabeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Scannell v. State Ballot Law CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Bartlett v. City of LowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Webb Granite & Construction Co. v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Whiting v. Mayor of HolyokeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.