Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1891-03-25
oPINloN oE lie suPREME COURT
In the Celebrated Case of e. w. Pinney
Against Messrs Brown and Carmody.

~ bNt0N ~ 00S'et
In the Celebrated Case of e. w. Pinney
Against Messrs Brown and Carmody.
The finding of the supreme court in
the case of E. w. Pinney VS. F. J.
Brown ct al,was received to-day and is a
lengthy document. After going into
the details of the election, the call for a
town meeting and the action of the
democratic majority of the board in
appointing F. j. Brown town agent and
Robert Fruin superintendent of high
ways, the opinion is substantially as
follows:
1.-THE first of these questions may be
answered without hesitation Tha. Mr.
Pinney is the lawful superintendent of
highways and bridges in that town.
The vote at the annual town meeting
appointing Mr. Fruin was void for the
reason that there was nothing in the
warning of that meeting to notify the
inhabitants that superintendent of
was there anything in it to
indicate that any action was to be taken
respecting the care of highways and
bridges in the town. In a town as large
as Waterbury the care of its highways
and bridges is of great importance to
every taxpayer, as we'll by reason of the
expense of such care as by reason of the
liability to which the town might be
subjected if the highways and
pair. Section 33 of the general
statutes requires that the warning of
every town meeting shall specify the
objects for which such meeting is to be
called. 1t has been repeatedly decided
that town meeting not warned agree
ably to the mode designated in the
statute was no legal congregation of the
town and its acts at such a meeting
were void. Nor did the action OF
any right to the office of superintend
ent. The selectmen had no authority
to make such an appointment. Theil
powers are for the most part conferred
by certain statutes, and they cannot &C
beyond the special limits of the statutes
They have no power to appoint another
to perform the duties that devolve OIL
themselves. And still less do they have
authority to appoint an agent to exer
else other powers of the town which
they cannot themselves exercise.
What we have already said substan
TALLY disposes of the other question, anC
shows that Mr. Brown cannot be towr
agent, either by the ballot at the towr
meeting or by the action of the select
men. There is no statute that provides
for any such Office in a town, as towr
agent; nor is there any statute that de
fines any duty to be performed by sucl
an officer. Undoubtedly a town, like
any other corporation, may appoint al
agent for any proper purpose. Possibly
a town might appoint an agent to per
form any or all duties usually performed
by the selectmen-eXcept such as ar
specifically imposed on the selectmel
by the constitution or statutes. But tn,
selectmen being themselves agents, can
not appoint another, or one of them
selves, to be an agent for their owl
town. That rule of law governs which
is found in the maxim, "Delegati
protestas non protest delegari.
Certainly that could MT, unles
specially empowered so to do. And
the town itself desired to appoint al
agent it would be necessary that i
should be done by a vote in a tow
meeting duly warned for that purpose.
In this opinion all the judges con
Cured.