TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

North v. City Council of Brockton

David D. North, Junior, & Others vs. City Council or Brockton & Others

North v. City Council of Brockton, 170 N.E.2d 470 (Mass. 1960)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 2, 1960
Judges
Wilkins, Spalding, Williams, Whittbmoke, Cutter
Citations
170 N.E.2d 470341 Mass. 4831960 Mass. LEXIS 634

Opinion — Wilkins

Wilkins, C.J.

This petition by not less than ten taxpayers of Brockton is brought against the city council, the city manager, and the chief engineer of the fire department. G. L. c. 40, § 53. Its purpose is to enjoin the expenditure of money or the incurring of obligations under an ordinance reducing the work week of the members of the fire department from fifty-six to forty-eight hours. Members and officers of the City Firefighters Union, Local No. 144, a labor union of the AFL-CIO, were allowed to intervene as party respondents. They filed a demurrer, which was overruled, and they appealed. There later was a hearing on the merits which resulted in a final decree declaring the ordinance invalid and purporting to enjoin its enforcement. The intervening respondents again appealed.

*484 There were six grounds of demurrer. If any one of them is good, the demurrer should have been sustained.

Hiller v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.

324 Mass. 24, 25 . The third ground is, “A taxpayers’ petition, under G. L. c. 40, § 53, cannot be brought to challenge an ordinance passed by the council of the city of Brockton unless some illegal expenditures are contemplated by the passing of the ordinance, which is not shown by the petitioners ’ bill of complaint as amended. ’ ’

The statute provides ten taxpayers with this remedy by injunction only “If a town or any of its officers or agents are about to raise or expend money or incur obligations purporting to bind said town for any purpose or object or in any manner other than that for and in which such town has the legal and constitutional right and power to raise or expend money or incur obligations . . ..” Our cases have emphasized the basic provision that the town or its officers must be about to raise or expend money or incur obligations. Dea ltry v. Selectmen of Watertown, 279 Mass. 22, 27 .

Amory v. Assessors of Boston, 310 Mass. 199, 202 .

Lowell v. Boston, 322 Mass. 709, 733-735 .

East Side Constr. Co. Inc.

v. Adams, 329 Mass. 347, 351-352 .

Lynch v. Cambridge, 330 Mass. 308, 311 .

Clark v. Mayor of Gloucester, 336 Mass. 631, 632 .

The petition does not contain such allegations. The nearest approach is found in allegations upon information and belief that if the forty-eight hour week becomes effective, in order to give the city adequate fire protection, it will be necessary to appoint twenty-six additional firefighters at an increased payroll cost of $115,000, and that there will be other great additional costs. The demurrer should have been sustained.

The final decree is reversed. The interlocutory decree overruling the demurrer is reversed, and a new interlocutory decree is to be entered sustaining the demurrer. A new final decree is to be entered dismissing the petition.

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1961: 11963: 11964: 11966: 11968: 11981: 12023: 119612026peak 1961 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Duane v. City of Quincy213 N.E.2d 250 (Mass. 1966)
  2. Bouchard v. City of Haverhill171 N.E.2d 848 (Mass. 1961)
  3. Speak v. City of Boston189 N.E.2d 519 (Mass. 1963)
  4. Omartian v. Mayor of Springfield238 N.E.2d 48 (Mass. 1968)
  5. Porter v. Ketchum203 N.E.2d 84 (Mass. 1964)
  6. Macioci v. Commissioner of Revenue2 Mass. Supp. 895 (1981)

Most recent

  1. Reilly v. HopedaleNos. AC 22-P-314 & 22-P-433 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 7, 2023)
  2. Macioci v. Commissioner of Revenue2 Mass. Supp. 895 (1981)
  3. Omartian v. Mayor of Springfield238 N.E.2d 48 (Mass. 1968)
  4. Duane v. City of Quincy213 N.E.2d 250 (Mass. 1966)
  5. Porter v. Ketchum203 N.E.2d 84 (Mass. 1964)
  6. Speak v. City of Boston189 N.E.2d 519 (Mass. 1963)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Lowell v. City of Boston, 79 N.E.2d 713 (Mass. 1948) 65
Dealtry v. Selectmen of Watertown, 180 N.E. 621 (Mass. 1932) 37
East Side Constr. Co. v. Town of Adams, 108 N.E.2d 659 (Mass. 1952) 27
Amory v. Assessors of Boston, 37 N.E.2d 459 (Mass. 1941) 20
Hiller v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 84 N.E.2d 548 (Mass. 1949) 17
Lynch v. City of Cambridge, 113 N.E.2d 311 (Mass. 1953) 13
Clark v. Mayor of Gloucester, 147 N.E.2d 191 (Mass. 1958) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list