The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1876-12-12
POWERS OF TOWN AGENTS.
An important Decision in the U. 9. Cir
cult Court.

/ uay lnoruiug In the case OF Moses Sargent VI
the Inhabitants of Bristol:
| By the law of Maine, towns are made liabl
to the owners of any buildings injured or de
stroyed oy mob for three-fourths of the in
jury if it exceeds fifty dollars, if the owne
uses all reasonable diligence to prevent such
| injuries and to procure the conviction of tht
Offenders; and the town paying such sum MAJ
recover it in an action of the case against th,
| person doing the injury.
| In April 18i8 Bretmaa & Sons wers the
owners OF porgy oil factory in the town o.
| Bristol, which was destroyed under such cir
| cumstances that the town was respt nsble &c
| The owners for three-fourths of the injury, al
they caim med, and they accordingly notified Ar
| nold Blaney, chairman of the Selectmen oil
| the town of Bristol and also town agent. tia,
they intended to hold the towu accountable, and
after protracted litigation, their claim was even:
tually sustained and they recovered damages fol
| large amount in an action brought by the
| Breltmans ag snst the town. The plaintiff, a
| well known detective was engaged by the
| Breltmans, to assist them in discovering the
| Offenders aud to procure their conviction; be
| was employed by them in this duty for twenty
| i've days, at the end OF that time Baney was
notified by the Breitmans that they DO longer
| had occasion for Ssrgents services aud should
| then discharge him. The plaintiff contended
| that after this he was employed by Blauey as
| town agent, in the towns behalf, to contnue
his Investigations, and aid 10 discovering the
SutIty phrtlbs3 anu W recover nus com tiO0
| for his services so rendered, this action was in.
stituted May Is, 1873. Sargent having before
tnat commenced an action against Blauay in
which he claimed to hold him personally &C
countable to him for the payment of those ser
vlces-atter the suit was brought against Ba-
ney, the town of Bristol at meeting held in
March. 1872. voted that Thomas Nichols confer
with Moses Sargent ard make the ''best settle
ment he can" At the April term, 1873, the
action OF Sargent VS.. Blaney was entered uei-
Their party, aud the present suit was instituted
The jury We're instructed that if they found
Arnold Blaney, as town agent of Bristol, was
Notified by the Breitmans that they should
claim to hold the town of Bristol responsible to
them, under C. 1913, r. S. 1857, for the damages
sustained from the alleged mob, and there
afterward, Blaney as town agent and in behalf
OF the town, employed the plaintiff as detec-
tive 10 discover the guilty parties that the town
might obtain indemnity therefrom, and after
wards the town at meeting duly called and
held, March 1872 passed the vote, read from
the record of the meeting, the jury would be
authorized to fini the town responsible to the
plaintiff for his services tor the time so en-.
pleyed. A verdict having been rendered for
the plaintiff, the defendants move for a new
trial, on the ground that this instruction was
erroneous. BY C. 3, Sec 1, r. S. 1871. it was
enacted that ''the inhabitants of each town,
are body corporate, capable of suing and be-
Ing sued aud of appointing agents and attor-
Mes, aud the same language is found in r s.
1S41 and 1857 Z. 113, laws of 1921, sec. 7, was
more precise and definite in this behalf as it in
terms authorized towns to commence and pros
ecute any suit and to defend suits or actions
commenced against them. and for this purpose,
the said inhabitants qualified and convened in
manner aforesaid, may nominate and appoint
one or more agents or attornies,' and this is
the precise language of the act of Mass of
1855. Although the language OF our Revised
Statutes is general, indefinite and vague,
In thus authorizing towns to appoint agents
and attornies without any restriction or limita-
ton as to the purposes aud extent of such agen-
cy, we are of the opinion that it was not the
intention of the Legislature in any degree to
vary or extend the law from what it had al
ways been in Massachusetts and this State. or to
confer on the agents thus appointed, other or
greater authority than they had previously
possessed, and that agents so chosen can not be
deemed general agents of the town in all its
matters. with authority on all occasions to act
Tor and 10 the towns behalf, but they are the
rather to be deemed special agents of the town,
selected for the purpose of commencing and
prosecuting suits in behalf of the town and of
defending the town in actions instituted against
IL; SUCH person Is the agent of the town, rela-
tive to its legal controversies, in all such mat
ters to act as and for the town in representing
and protecting its legal rights, with all the
requisite power and authority conferred by the
town upon him, to accomplish the object and
purpose of his agency; that such agent has the
authority to employ COUNSEL to defend an ac
ton brought against the town was decided
by the Supreme Court A. Me. 20, Knowl-
ton VS.. Plantation No. 4, thus recognizing
his authority, without the concurrence of
the other town officers, to incur liabilities in
behalf OF the town, in defense of sut already
commenced. In Pittston vs. Clark, Is Me-,
56Ot was claimed by the town that town
agent being appointed according to the provis-
ions OF the statute becomes an officer of the law
and bound to perform his duties in prosecuting
a hfFrr &c 81
10 SO doing he conforms to or dsobeys the in
structions of his principal; but this claim was
not sanctioned by the supreme court. Mr. j.
Shepley in the opinion says "the statutes pro-
viding Tor their appointment (town agents)
does not prescribe their duties or define their
powers, it only gives them the right to repre-
sent their town and perform such acts as their
principal might perform by any other agency
which would legslly represent them, and to as
certain the relative rights and duties of towns
ana town agents, reference must necessarily be
had as IN other cases to the laws of the land''
This view is sustained by the language of Par.
ker, Z. D.. IN 16 Mass. 1896 that vote to choose
agents and choice in conformity thereto is
equivalent to full power Of attorney, aud
agents thus appointed have the power of sub
stitution or delegation, &c. In Fletcher vs..
Lowell, ID Gray 105, Bigelow, j., says: "a vote
OF the city council referring to the mayor
petition for jury to assess damages &c., aud
authorizing the mayor to employ such counsel
as may be deemed expedient, conferred on the
mayor full power to retain counsel for the pur-
pose of procuring evidence. preparing the case
tor trial and for doing any act usual and proper
In the conduct and management of the suit in
all its stages
In Augusta vs. Leadbetter II Me. d it was
decided, that a town agent with the assent of
the selectmen might purchase a negotiable
note for the purpose OF meeting au expected
claim upon the town by the payee. Shepley,
j. says ''tbe powers of the agent are limited
only by the capacities OF the corporation and
by the nature of his employment" Whether
an authority OF an agent be general or
special it is declared by Story in his work on
agency see So, "as always considered to include
all the necessary and usual means of executing
it with effect
In the present instance the law having au-
thorlzed tbs appointment of an agent by
town for the purpose of commencing and pros,
scouting suits in the towns behalf as well as to
defend those commenced against it, such agent
Is to be considered as having conferred upon
him all means usual and necessary for the
proper discharge OF the duties of such agency
it will be observed his authority is not restricted
to the defense of the town in suits instituted
against the town, but he may and should COM
mence and prosecute in the towns behalf ali
such actions as he shall judge proper for the
protection of the town, and whatever steps he
may deem jud,cious and reasonable for him to
adopt, relative to SUCH claims and prior to any
suit, we think by implication he is author
lied to pursue, although by so doing some ex-
penses may be incurred for which the town
will be chargeable. His authority is like that
OF any other agent to whom is entrusted by his
principal the care and protection of his legal
rights in his absence, and it must be held broad
enough to accomplish the object intended
Such an agent may not only employ an attorney
to commence tho suit for his principal if he
shall deem it expedent so to do but any pre-
lminary proceeding he may deem requisite and
proper he may first initiate 10 order to ascer-
tam whether cause of action exists aud
against whom the suit should be brought, and
to this end he may employ detective 10 be-
half OF tina town q a case like that now pre-
scented for our determination. Such authority
we hold is am pie from the very purpose and
Nature OF the agency. The rights of the prin-
clpal ID many cases could not be ascertained
aud understood without such assistance; it is
the duty, most certainly. of party to make
good reason for iostitutiug his sui5 before ne
commences the same, aud any agent he may
employ to act in his behalf in the matter is
bound to exercise the same prudence and dis
erection and make all proper inyestig cations be-
fore he involves his principal in q suit at law.
Many instances may be suggested 10 which it .
would be manifestly the duty of such an agent
10 adopt measures in such Investigations before
commencing an action for his principal, and
which would be likely to be attended with COO
siderable expense; AID if with lut such investi-
gaticn, be should commence the action and
for want thereof fail to sustain the same,
,irrtf oil h.I hal