Page images



TENANT Om 150(1)-RE- | Boston. It is plain that there was no evPAIRS—COMMON STAIRWAY,

idence of negligence of the defendant; there. The rule that a person entitled to the use of an easement is required to keep it in the fore there could be no recovery on the first necessary repair does not apply to common count. The only question then is, whether stairways and hallways; the duty to repair there was any evidence of a breach of coveresting upon the landlord.

nant on the part of the defendant as lessee. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. § 536; Dec, Dig. 150(1).]

(1) The report states that: 4. LANDLORD AND TENANT Om 124(2)—PREM about seven feet wide.

"The stairway damaged is of marble and

It is a common stairISES-INJURY TO STAIRWAY BY SUBLESSEE— way used by the defendant and the other tenLESSEE'S LIABILITY. A lessee, subletting contrary to his lease, is as an entrance to the second balcony of the Tre

ants of the lessor overhead, and it is used also not liable for damages to a common stairway by mont Theater, which was run by the plaintiff. the sublessee, since such stairway is not a part The stairway was the only means of reaching of the demised premises.

the second floor of the building on which were [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Landlord and located the defendant's rooms. Tenant, Cent. Dig. $ 438; Dec. Dig. Om 124(2).]

It therefore appears that the stairway Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, which was used by the defendant and other Appellate Division.

tenants of the building was a common stairAction by the Tremont Theater Amusement way. While it was the only means of reachCompany against Frank V. Bruno. Findings ing the rooms leased by the defendant on the for plaintiff were vacated by the appellate second floor, it was not the less a common division of the municipal court, and judg- stairway, and in the absence of any grant or ment ordered for defendant, and plaintiff ap- contract to the contrary, the possession and peals. Affirmed.

control thereof remained in the lessor. As Thos. J. Barry, of Boston, for appellant. was said by Loring, J., in the recent case of Richard M. Walsh, of Boston, for appellee.

Flanagan v. Welch, 220 Mass. 186, 191, 107

N. E. 979, 981: CROSBY, J. On September 15, 1909, the

"It may be taken to be now established that plaintiff by a written lease, demised and let which is let out in offices or tenements remain

common hallways and stairways of a building to the defendant for the term of four years in the control of the landlord for the use of his and four months from February 1, 1910, the tenants, and that it is his duty to each tenant first floor above the street floor of the Tre- to keep them in the same safe condition or ap

parent condition in which they were at the bemont Theater building at 176 Tremont street ginning of the several leases to the respective in Boston, to be used as a barber shop. The tenants." Fitzsimmons v. Hale, 220 Mass. 461, lease contained the following clauses:

107 N. E. 929; Miller v. Hancock, (1893] 2 Q.

B. 177. "That the lessee * will keep all and singular the premises in such repair, order and [2] There is no doubt that the lessee was condition as the same are in at the commence entitled as a part of his grant to use the stairment of the said term or may be put in during the continuance thereof, damage by fire or other way in common with other tenants. Otherunavoidable casualty only excepted.” And that wise he would not have had access to the the lessee “will not assign said lease nor under- leased premises. This right was a right in the let the whole or any part of the said premises nature of an easement and was appurtenant to without first obtaining on each occasion consent in writing of the lessor.

Also that the premises described in the lease. Nesson at the expiration of the term of the lease the v. Adams, 212 Mass. 429, 99 N. E. 93; Eplessee will deliver up to the lessor the premises stein v. Dunbar, 221 Mass. 579, 109 N. E. 730. "in good repair, order and condition in all respects, damage by fire or unavoidable casualty And this would be so whether the lease grantexcepted; and that during the said term

ed the premises with the appurtenances in exthe said premises shall not be overloaded, dam- press terms or was silent on that subject. It aged or defaced.”

does not follow, however, that the stairway beThe record shows that the defendant, dur came a part of the demised premises because, ing the term of his lease, sublet one of the as before stated, it remained in the exclusive rooms included in the lease to one Quigley; possession and control of the landlord upon that afterwards, Quigley vacated the room whom alone rested the duty of making re and engaged one Welch to move therefrom a pairs. There was no duty or even right vestsafe; that while the safe was being taken ed in the tenant to make repairs upon the down the stairs the rope holding it broke, stairway; he could only travel over it in and the stairway, which was constructed of passing to and from the rooms which he had marble, was damaged. This action is brought leased. to recover for the damage to the stairway. [3] The ordinary rule in the absence of The plaintiff's declaration contains three grant or contract, is that a person who is encounts: The first alleges negligence; the sec-titled to the use of an easement, i. e. the ond and third are in contract, and allege a owner of the dominant estate, is bound to breach of the covenants in the lease.

keep the easement in such repair as is necesThe case comes to this court upon the plain-, sary for the exercise of his rights in its use. tiff's appeal from the decision of the appellate But that rule is held not to apply to common division of the municipal court of the city of hallways and common stairways;

as to Cam For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

114 N.E.-43

them, the duty to repair rests upon the land- / titled to the use and occupation of the premlord. Flanagan v. Welch, ubi supra; Pres- ises as the assignee of a written lease thereof. cott v. White, 21 Pick, 341, 32 Am. Dec. 266; In 1908, the plaintiff made a written lease Miller v. Hancock, ubi supra; Taylor v. Whit- of a part of the premises described in the head, 2 Doug. 744.

writ, to the “George L. Elliot Barrel ComThe principle which renders a lessee liable pany, Inc.,” for the term of 15 years. The under similar covenants in a written lease, for defendant claims that he is entitled to ocbreach of covenant by a sublessee during the cupy the premises as assignee of this lease, original term, as was held in Miller v. Pres- but there is no evidence to show that the cott, 163 Mass. 12, 39 N. E. 409, 47 Am. St. lease was ever assigned to him by any inRep. 434, does not apply to the case at bar.

strument in writing. [4] As the stairway was not a part of the

There is a conclusive objection to the dedemised premises it follows that damage fendant's contention, although neither party thereto was not a breach of any covenant of bas referred to it. R. L. C. 127, § 3, provides the lease. The cases cited and relied on

that: by the plaintiff which hold that “appurte "An estate or interest in land which is creatnances" include everthing necessarily used or the grantor or by his attorney shall have the reasonably necessary to the part demised, are force and effect of an estate at will only, and no distinguishable from the case at bar for the estate or interest in land shall be assigned,

granted or surrendered unless by such writing reasons stated.

or by operation of law." The order of the appellate division vacating the finding for the plaintiff and ordering rendant could have no interest in the prem

It is plain that under this statute the dejudgment for the defendant was right, and

ises except an estate at will. Mathews v. must be affirmed.

Carlton, 189 Mass. 285, 75 N. E. 637; Emery So ordered.

v. Boston Terminal Co., 178 Mass. 172, 59 N.

E. 763, 86 Am. St. Rep. 473. The entry must (225 Mass. 510)


Exceptions overruled. (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Middlesex. Jan. 5, 1917.)


TELEGRAPH CO. Rev. Laws, c. 127, § 3, provides that an estate or an interest in land created without an

(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. instrument in writing signed by the grantor or

Middlesex, Jan. 4, 1917.) his attorney shall have the force of an estate at will only, and no estate or interest in land shall 1. WITNESSES 379(7)—INCONSISTENT STATEbe assigned, granted, or surrendered unless by

MENTS-JUDICIAL RECORDS. such writing, or by operation of law. A written

Where plaintiff testified as to his earnings lease of premises was made to a corporation. before the injury in question, the record in a Defendant claimed to be entitled to occupy the former action by plaintiff against his employer

ses as assignee of such lease. Held, there to recover wages for the same period was ad. being no evidence that the lease was ever assign- missible to show the declaration there claimed ed to him by any instrument in writing, he could wages much less than his present testimony, even have no interest in the premises except an estate though such former action was prematurely at will.

brought. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Frauds, Stat

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Witnesses, ute of, Cent. Dig. $ 272; Dec. Dig. Ow123(1).] Cent. Dig. 8 1251; Dec. Dig. Om379(7).)

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex 2. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT 70 – PRESUMPCounty; Loranus E. Hitchcock, Judge.

TIONS-PLEADINGS DRAWN BY ATTORNEY. Action of ejectment by Angelo S. Scotti

A declaration in another action was preagainst George S. Bullock. Verdict was or- plaintiff's direction.

sumably drawn by plaintiff's attorney under dered for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. (Ed. Note,-For other cases, see Attorney and Exceptions overruled.

Client, Cent. Dig. § 95; Dec. Dig. Om 70.) E. A. Counihan, Jr., and F. W. Fosdick, 3. WITNESSES 317(1) INCONSISTENT both of Boston, for plaintiff. Stebbins, Stor


If the jury was satisfied that plaintiff teser & Burbank, of Boston, for defendant.

tified falsely on the question of damages, they

had a right to consider it in determining the CROSBY, J. This is an action to recover weight and credibility of his testimony as relatpossession of certain real estate under R. L. ing to other material issues. c. 181, as amended by St. 1914, c. 146, and Cent. Dig. g 1080; Dec. Dig. (m317(1).]

[Ed. Note.- For other cases, see Witnesses, St. 1915, c. 146.

At the close of the evidence the presiding Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlejudge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, sex County; Patrick M. Keating, Judge. and the defendant excepted. It is plain Action by Henry F. Peck against the New that upon the evidence the action of the court England Telephone & Telegraph Company. was proper and that the plaintiff was enti- Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings tled to recover, unless the defendant was en-) exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

J. J. Butler, of Boston, for plaintiff. Pow- , 215, 38 N. E. 435; Sullivan v. Boston Elev. ers & Hall, of Boston, for defendant.

Ry., 199 Mass. 73, 84 N. E. 844, 21 L. R. A.

(N. S.) 36; Root v. Boston Elev. Ry., 183 CROSBY, J. This is an action of tort Mass. 418, 420, 67 N. E. 365. It follows that to recover for personal injuries alleged to the entry must be have been received by the plaintiff on No

Exceptions overruled. vember 14, 1914, while using a telephone instrument owned by the defendant.

(225 Mass. 399) [1] The plaintif testified upon direct ex

SALISBURY BEACH ASSOCIATES V. amination that from August 1, 1914, to the

EVANS et al. date of the accident he was in the employ of (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. EsGerstein Brothers as a salesman, and that

sex. Jan. 4, 1917.) his average earnings in this employment had

TAXATION Omw 360_APPORTIONMENT ON SALE been $24 to $25 a week. This evidence was OF LANDS-STATUTE. competent and material upon the question of St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 1, $ 88, provides that if damages. It related to his earning capacity realty is divided after a tax has been assessed,

and if the division is recorded, the assessors, at the time he was injured. On cross ex

at any time before sale for taxes, on written amination he testified that he had brought request of the owner of any portion, shall apan action against Gerstein Brothers to re portion the tax on the several parcels, and that cover the amount which he claimed to be due only the portion of the tax apportioned on any

parcel shall continue to be a lien on it, and the him for services from August 1, 1914, until owners or mortgagees shall be liable only for some time after the accident. Subject to the the tax apportioned on the parcel owned in plaintiff's exception, a copy of the record in whole or in part by them respectively. Held, that action was admitted in evidence; it ply to cases where the tax lien as to such parts

that the right to an apportionment did not apshowed that the amount claimed by the of the estate as have been alienated is gone, the plaintiff was much less than he testified in provision that the request for an apportionment direct examination he had earned. We are may be made "at any time before said real esof opinion that the record was admissible to extending the time for the request to a period

tate has been sold for payment of taxes” not contradict the testimony of the plaintiff on when the lien has expired, so that assessors of his direct examination as to his earning a town properly refused to apportion a tax ascapacity. Robinson v. Old Colony Street

sessed on realty part of which was later sold,

where the earlier of two requests for apportionRy., 189 Mass. 594, 76 N. E. 190; Riley v. ment was made more than five weeks after the Tolman, 181 Mass. 335, 63 N. E. 892; Mul- lien for the taxes bad expired as to parcels of lins v. Peaslee, 180 Mass. 161, 61 N. E. 811. land which had been alienated. [2, 3] The rule that pleadings are not evi

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation dence do not apply to this case. While the

Cent. Dig. 8 599; Dec. Dig. 360.] declaration in the case against Gerstein

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Brothers was drawn by the plaintiff's at- Essex County; William C. Loring, Judge. torney, still it may be presumed to have

Petition for mandamus by the Salisbury been prepared under the instructions of the Beach Associates against William M. Evans plaintiff. James v. Boston Elevated Ry., and others, Assessors of the Town of Salis201 Mass. 263, 266, 87 N. E. 474; Johnson v. bury. On report for determination of the Russell, 144 Mass. 409, 11 N. E. 670; Gor- full court. Petition dismissed. don v. Parnelee, 2 Allen, 212, 215. The con. Walter Coulson and A. N. Frost, both of tention of the plaintiff that the action Lawrence, for petitioners. J. T. Choate, of brought by him against Gerstein Brothers Amesbury, and A. F. Priest, of Haverhill, was so brought prematurely, does not seem for respondents. to be material, as the relevancy of the record

RUGG, O. J. This petition for a writ of was to show by the declaration that his earnings before the injury were much less

mandamus was reported "for the considerathan he had testified on direct examination tion and determination of the full court,

such order to be entered as law and justice that they amounted to. The evidence as

may require.” Respecting similar phraseolshown by the record, was admissible to affect In other words, it was Mass. 285, 93 N. E. 697, that:

ogy, it was said in Scanlon v. Carey, 207 his credibility. properly allowed to test his honesty as well as the accuracy of his recollection. If the the parties have treated it, and we treat it as

“The reservation in this case is informal, but jury were satisfied that he testified falsely intended to report to this court questions of as to a material issue in the case, they had law that arose at the hearing, which was all a right to consider it in determining the under the statute, R. L. c. 156, $.7; c. 173, $


could be reserved or reported weight and degree of credibility to be given 105." Boucher v. Salem Rebuilding Commisto all his testimony, including not only that sion, 225 Mass. 18, 113 N. E, 575. which related to damages, but that which The petitioners are owners of Salisbury referred to any other issue involved in the Beach, which contains about five hundred trial. The credibility of the plaintiff as a acres of land. The respondents are the aswitness was wholly for the determination of sessors of the town of Salisbury, within the jury. Com, v. Clune, 162 Mass, 206, 213, the territory of which the beach lies. Ou

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes


November 8, 1915, the petitioners notified the the portion of the tax apportioned upon any respondents that the real estate assessed to parcel "shall continue to be a lien upon it," them in 1913 had been divided by sale since is an express indication that no apportionthe tax for 1913 had been assessed, and such ment can be demanded unless made in time division recorded, and requested them “to for a lien effective for the practical purposes apportion said tax of 1913, and the costs of a tax collector to remain upon the several and interest accrued thereon, upon the sev- parcels after the apportionment shall have eral parcels thereof in proportion to the been made. The provision that the request value of each,” in accordance with St. 1909, for an apportionment may be made "at any C. 190, pt. 1, § 88.1 On December 18, 1915, time before said real estate has been sold another request for apportionment was ad- for payment of taxes,” does not stretch the dressed to the respondents, stating that the time for the request to a period when the Lawrence Trust Company had a duly record- lien has expired. ed mortgage upon all their property except It follows that the petitioners did not Lot 437, Sheet 3200-N on a plan filed in the make a seasonable application for an apregistry of deeds, and asking apportionment portionment and the assessors rightly refusof the tax “upon said parcel and upon the rest ed to comply with their request. of the registered land which is covered by Petition dismissed. said mortgage." Apparently this mortgage was subsequent to April 1, 1913. The petition. ers have paid all but $769.31 out of $7,142.65, the total tax assessed as of April 1, 1913.

(225 Mass. 372) The respondent assessors refused to make

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. LOOMIS. the apportionment and this petition is (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts brought to compel them to do so.

Suffolk. Jan. 3, 1917.) The earlier of the two requests for appor- 1. PLEADING E129(1) — ADMISSIONS tionment was made on November 8, 1915,


SUMPTIONS. more than five weeks after the lien for the In a proceeding in the nature of quo war taxes of 1913 had expired as to parcels of ranto, all allegations of material facts not travland which had in the meantime been al- ersed by either party must be assumed to be

true. fenated. St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 2, § 36. It is one of the agreed facts that a large number cent. Dig. 88 270, 274, 275; Dec. Dig.

(Ed. Note.-For other cases, _see Pleading, of lots were sold out of the beach estate by 129(1).] the petitioners after April 1, 1913, and before 2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Om149(2) — OR April 1, 1914. Rights as to collection of the

CITY CLERK TERM OF OFFICE tax are limited somewhat by any apportion

STATUTES-CONSTRUCTION. ment. Rogers v. Gookin, 198 Mass. 434, 85 of Medford, provides that in 1902 and every

Rev. Laws, c. 26, § 15, accepted by the city N. E. 405. But it is manifest that the right third year thereafter a city clerk shall be electto an apportionment under section 88 of parted or appointed for three years from the date of 1 of the tax act was not intended to apply to election or appointment and shall hold until eleccases where the lien as to such parts of the tion or appointment and qualification of his suc

cessor unless sooner removed by due process of estate as have been alienated is gone. Grave law, and that one appointed to fill a vacancy ditticulties might arise as to the collection of shall hold until the end of the unexpired term of the whole and the parts of the tax, and the the person who last held the office. St. 1903, C. validity of such an apportionment. Prompt 345, 10, adopted after enactment of Rev. Laws,

c. 26, § 15, provides that the board of aldermen collection of taxes is essential to the support shall elect according to law a city clerk to hold of government. The duties of a tax collector for the term of election and until election and as to taxes committed to him are onerous qualification of his successor. Section 53 proand his liability is stringent. Boston v. Tur vides that all persons holding office when the act

takes effect shall continue to hold such offices ner, 201 Mass. 190, 196, 87 N. E. 634. The until organization of government is effected and design of tax laws is to promote speedy col- respective successors are chosen and qualified. lection in order that government may not Section 56 provides that all general laws in force be hampered by delays. They are to be in with reference to the town of Medford which

when the act is accepted and special laws passed terpreted in the light of this necessary pur- have been accepted by the town shall continue pose.

The use of the word "lien" in that in force. Held, that the provisions of St, 1903, part of section 88 which provides that only constituting the charter of Medford, did not

affect the term of the city clerk, but merely va1 "Section 88. It real estate 18 divided by sale, cated all offices as of the date of its adoption. mortgage, upon a petition for partition or otherwise (Ed. Note. For other cases, see Municipal after a tax has been assessed thereon and such dia Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 328; Dec. Dig. vision has been duly recorded in the registry of

149(2).) deeds, the assessors at any time before said real estate has been sold for payment of taxes, upon the 3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Cm149(2) - OF written request of the owner or mortgagee of any

CITY CLERK TERM OF OFFICE portion thereof, shall apportion said tax and the costs and interest accrued thereon upon the several

STATUTES-CONSTRUCTION="SOONER REMOV. parcels thereof, in proportion to the value of each, ED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW." and only the portion of said tax, interest and costs The sweeping removal of officers by St. 1903, 80 apportioned upon any such parcel shall continue

c. 345, $ 53, on adoption of the new charter in to be a lien upon it; and the owners or mortgagees shall be liable only for the tax apportioned upon Medford, was an instance of the officers' being the parcel owned in whole or in part by them re- "sooner removed by due process of law" within spectively."

the meaning of such words in Rev. Laws, c. 26,



[ocr errors]

§ 15, providing for appointment of officers to fill of material facts not traversed by either parvacancies.

ty must be assumed to be true. (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Prior to the first Monday of January, 1904, Corporations, Cent. Dig. g 328; Dec. Dig. Om the city of Medford bad accepted St. 1901, c. 149(2).] 4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Ow149(2)-OFFI

332, now R. L. c. 26, § 15. That statute esCERS—CITY CLERK-TERM OF OFFICE-STAT- tablished the term of office for the city clerk UTES-CONSTRUCTION.

in all cities which accepted its provisions. Under Rev. Laws, C. 26, § 15, providing that That term, so far as applicable to the city of one appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of Medford (which never has elected a city clerk city clerk shall hold until the end of the unexpired term of the person who last held office, in December); was in these words: and providing that the term of city clerk sball "In the year nineteen hundred and two, and be three years from 1902 and until three years in every third year thereafter

a city thereafter, the terms are to be ascertained by clerk shall be elected or appointed, as required computing the number of years in periods of by the charter of said city, for a term of three three from 1903.

years from the date of his election or appoint

Such clerk shall hold his office [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Municipal ment. Corporations, Cent. Dig. $ 328; Dec. Dig.

until the election or appointment and qualifica149(2).)

tion of his successor, unless sooner removed by

due process of law. A person who is appointed 5. STATUTES 212 CONSTRUCTION PRE- to fill a vacancy in the office of city clerk shall SUMPTION.


office until the end of the unexWhen a time is fixed by statute for election pired term of the person who last held the ofor appointment of an officer, it is to be presumed fice." that the election or appointment will be made according to law, although the provision is direc

As matter of construction, that section, if tory only, and the statute as a whole is to be it has continued applicable, means that a construed upon that presumption.

city clerk ought to be elected in Medford in [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Statutes, 1902, and every third year thereafter, viz., Cent, Dig. & 289; Dec. Dig. Om 212.)

in 1905, 1908, 1911, 1914 and 1917. 6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Om 149(3)-OFFI. R. L. c. 26, 8 15, was in effect in Medford CERS-CITY CLERK-TERM.

Where, after adoption of St. 1903, c. 345, when St. 1903, c. 345, which was the revised in spite of St. 1901, c. 332, now Rev. Laws, c.charter of the city of Medford, took full ef26, § 15, making the city clerk's term of office fect on the first Monday in January, 1904. three years, commencing in 1902, a clerk was The only provisions of that charter relating elected in 1904, but during 1914, the then in directly or indirectly to the office of city clerk cumbent resigned, the term of the appointee must be determined by computation of the three are found in sections 10, 53 and 56. Section year periods from 1902 when the statute went 10, so far as concerns city clerk, is in these into effect, so that, the resigning clerk having words: been elected in 1914, would have held until January, 1917, and the appointee would hold for the according to law, a city clerk, who shall hold

The board of aldermen shall elect, same term, and one thereafter elected in 1916 office for the term of his election and until his held office without right.

successor is elected and qualified.

In [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal case of a vacancy in the office the same shall be Corporations, Cent. Dig. $ 329; Dec. Dig. filled by the board of aldermen. 149(3).] 7. Quo WARRANTO Cm11–NATURE OF-WHEN

That section does not fix any term for the PROPER.

office of city clerk. It simply provides that Quo warranto is the proper proceeding to the person elected "shall hold office for the question the right to office of de facto, but term of his election." If that section stood not de jure, officers.

alone, it would be necessary to look to the [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Quo War- general law to ascertain the term of office of ranto, Cent. Dig. 8 13; Dec. Dig. 11.)

city clerk, and the term of his office would Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, be governed by R. L. c. 26, § 15, above quotSuffolk County.

ed. Information in the nature of quo warranto Section 53 of the charter is in these words: by Henry C. Attwill, Attorney General, on “All persons holding office in said city at the the relation of Frederick W. McGowan time when this act takes effect

shall against Charles H. Loomis, city clerk. At tion of the city government as hereby authorized

continue to hold such offices until the organizathe request of both parties, the case was shall be effected and until their respective sucreserved for the full court. Judgment of cessors shall be chosen and qualified.” ouster.

Manifestly that section fixes no term for Frank W. Kaan, of Boston, for petitioner. any office. It simply defines the end of the Wm. J. Miller and Geo. C. Scott, both of period of service for those holding city ofBoston, for respondent.

fices at the time the city charter takes ef

fect. RUGG, C. J. [1] This is an information Section 56 of the charter is in these words: in the nature of a quo warranto requiring the "All general laws in force in the city of Medrespondent to show by what title he holds ford when this act is accepted as herein providthe office of city clerk of the city of Medford.ed, and all special laws heretofore passed with The case comes before us by reservation on shall have been duly accepted by said town or

reference to the town or city of Medford, which information and answer. All the allegations / city, and which shall then be in force, shall,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Om For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

« PreviousContinue »