TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wood v. City of Haverhill

Roswell L. Wood & others v. City of Haverhill & others

Wood v. City of Haverhill, 55 N.E. 381 (Mass. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 29, 1899
Judges
Morton
Citations
55 N.E. 381174 Mass. 5781899 Mass. LEXIS 983
Headnotes
Order of City Council — Vacation to Members of Police Department. It is within the power of the city council of Haverhill to adopt an order granting all members of the police department, including the driver of the patrol wagon, a ten-day vacation without loss of pay, on the condition that it shall be at no extra expense to the department.
Summary
Petition in equity, under Pub. Sts. c. 27, § 129, as amended by St. 1898, c. 490, by ten taxable inhabitants of the city of Haverhill, against the city, members of the city council, and the city treasurer, to restrain it and them from paying out • of the city treasury any money to any member of the police department or to the driver of the patrol wagon, “ as a payment of salary of said member of the police department or driver of the patrol wagon for any day during which he shall not be actually engaged in the performance of his duties as a member of the police department or driver of the patrol wagon, respectively.” The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and after the bill was dismissed, to this court, on appeal, upon agreed facts, in substance as follows. . In April, 1899, the city council, by concurrent action of the board of aldermen and common council duly approved by the mayor, passed the following order: “that all members of the police department, including the driver of the patrol wagon, be and is hereby granted a ten-day vacation without loss of pay, on the condition that it shall be at no extra expense to the department.” In accordance therewith, by rearrangement of the patrols, two officers were to take their vacations at the same time, and during their absence the remaining officers were to cover the beats and perform the duties of the absent ones so that no extra men should be employed. It was contemplated that the officers should receive their regular pay during their vacations. In addition to the ordinary duties of police, the officers of the city of Haverhill performed without extra pay duties in connection with parades, strikes, fires, liquor raids, and other matters during hours when they were not on regular duty. The salary bill for 1899 provided as follows: Sergeant, day and night patrolmen, including extinguishing of street lights, all fees received from trial justice, police, district, and municipal courts, superior, supreme, and United States courts, either for the service of processes or attendance as witness to go into the city treasury, per day, $2.50. If competent, it was agreed that orders providing for vacations without loss of pay, similar to that passed this year, were passed by the city and acted upon by the officers during the years 1883, 1884,1885,1886,1887,1888,1889,1890,1892, 1893,1894,1896. The police officers are appointed for a term of four years under and since the passage of the statute. There is no provision in the charter or ordinance of the city affecting this case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Morton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Morton, J.

A reasonable vacation without thereby subjecting the city to additional expense might well have been regarded by the city council as calculated to promote the health and efficiency of the police force, and, if so, we think that it was within the power of the city council to adopt the order which it did. It would come fairly within the authority conferred on cities and towns to make such reasonable provisions as they should deem conducive to their welfare “ for directing and managing the prudential affairs, preserving the peace and good order, and maintaining the internal police thereof.” Pub. Sts. c. 27, § 15; c. 28, § 2. It would also come within the power conferred on the mayor and aldermen of Haverhill to make such regulations for the government of the police department not inconsistent with law as they deem proper. St. 1894, c. 480. Malcolm v. Boston, 173 Mass. 312 . Bill dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1914: 11922: 11928: 11946: 11952: 219142026peak 1952 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cotter v. City of Chelsea108 N.E.2d 47 (Mass. 1952)
  2. Quinlan v. City of Cambridge68 N.E.2d 11 (Mass. 1946)
  3. Whittaker v. City of Salem216 Mass. 483 (1914)
  4. Averell v. City of Newburyport241 Mass. 333 (1922)
  5. Mayor of Holyoke v. Chief of Police of Holyoke103 N.E.2d 255 (Mass. 1952)
  6. Columbus, Delaware & Marion Electric Co. v. Board of County Commrs. of Marion Co.161 N.E. 538 (Ohio 1928)

Most recent

  1. Cotter v. City of Chelsea108 N.E.2d 47 (Mass. 1952)
  2. Mayor of Holyoke v. Chief of Police of Holyoke103 N.E.2d 255 (Mass. 1952)
  3. Quinlan v. City of Cambridge68 N.E.2d 11 (Mass. 1946)
  4. Columbus, Delaware & Marion Electric Co. v. Board of County Commrs. of Marion Co.161 N.E. 538 (Ohio 1928)
  5. Averell v. City of Newburyport241 Mass. 333 (1922)
  6. Whittaker v. City of Salem216 Mass. 483 (1914)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Malcolm v. City of Boston, 53 N.E. 812 (Mass. 1899) 11

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