Case ID: mass_14/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

* George Haliburton versus The Inhabitants of Frankfort.
    A citizen, who furnished cattle to a public enemy, at the request of the selectmen and other citizens of a town, in compliance with the exactions of such enemy upon the town, and to prevent the execution of his threats of violence, acquired thereby no right of action against the town for his indemnity.
    This was an action of assumpsit for a yoke .of oxen, sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants.
    The cause was tried on the general issue before Thatcher, J., at the sittings here after June term, 1815.
    The evidence at the trial was, in substance, as follows: In the early part of September, 1814, there being then an open war between the United States of America- and Great Britain, a detach ment of the British army and navy took possession of the-town of Castine, lying at the entrance of Penobscot River; and having the command of the river, they exacted certain contributions- of cattle and vegetables for their support, from the town of Frankfort with other towns adjoining the river, threatening violent treatment if their demands were not complied with. At the request of the selectmen of the town, and some others who had been appointed, by a voluntary meeting of a number of the inhabitants, a committee to treat with the British forces, the plaintiff furnished the yoke of oxen, for which he demands payment in this action, as part of the said contributions; and the same were delivered, with others, in compliance with the said exactions. There was no act of the town, in its corporate capacity, authorizing the said contributions, requesting individuals to furnish them, or recognizing the act of furnishing them, as done in behalf of the corporation.
    A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the evidence reported by the judge; and if, in the opinion of the Court, the plaintiff had maintained his action, judgment was to be entered on the verdict; otherwise the plaintiff was to become nonsuit.
    
      Wilson, for the plaintiff,
    argued that, as the demand made by the enemy was on the town in its corporate or municipal character, and as the plaintiff’s property was * appropriated to the satisfaction of that demand, it was reasonable and just that the town should reimburse him for what he had thus advanced for their benefit, and had applied to their use. In the confusion and hurry of such a scene, it was impossible to obtain a legal vote of the town; but in this case every thing was done, which the circumstances admitted, to pledge the faith of the town. There was a request of the selectmen, with,the addition of a committee of the principal citizens.
    
      ÉTGaw, for the defendants,
    insisted that they were under no legal obligation, in their corporate character, to indemnify the plaintiff. The mischief threatened, in case of non-compliance with' exactions of the British forces, must have fallen on individuals, not on the corporation. At any rate, here was no previous request, nor after recognition, of the plaintiff’s act; and nothing can be clearer than that, if one advances his money to save the property of another, without the request of that other, he submits himself, in respect to the money so advanced, wholly to the courtesy and liberality of him for whose benefit he made the advance.
   Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. However meritorious the plaintiff’s claim may be, and whatever obligations may rest upon the inhabitants, in honor and equity, to pay him for property advanced to purchase the safety of the whole, we are not able to perceive any legal principle upon which his action can be maintained. There was no contract by the inhabitants, nor by any person authorized to make one for them. The selectmen acted in their individual capacity; the transaction being wholly out of the sphere of their official duty.

It may be doubted whether, if a vote had been passed in a regular town meeting, to nay for the property thus sacrificed, a tax founded on such vote would be legal; for the demand was not of a nature to affect the inhabitants in their corporate, but only in their individual, capacity. The danger threatened was to the prop erty, not of the town, but of individuals. A voluntary * agreement amongst the inhabitants would have been binding, because founded on a meritorious consideration ; but a corporate vote might be questioned upon such a subject. The verdict must be set aside, and the plaintiff be called.

Plaintiff nonsuit.