The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1893-05-26

JlOflLeu TO perform was uOJ 10 DC uOu6
in the execution of public duty, i'm
posed upon them as public officers, but
it was private act which they, as prI-
vate citizens, had been appointed to do,
They did not derive authority from any
position they held as officers; but only
from their private appointment. The
law always required such joint
to be jointly executed" In
this case the decree of the court of Chan
Gerry, granting the injunction, was af
firmed. In 1879 the case of the North
Bennington Bank VS.. Mount Tabor to re-
cover interest on its bonds, issued in
payment for stock of the Lebanon
Springs Railroad Company, was decided
at the general term of the Supreme
Court, involving the same question.
The Court say; 1.-THE question of law
presented for our decision, then is, was
the act of two, of the three commission
ers, the third sharing in their delibera-
tions but refusing to concur in their de-
cision, a sufficient compliance with the
law?' This is one of the most thorough
ly considered cases in the Vermont re-
ports. Right here l will hand my
fellow citizens a few sample bricks from
this great pyramid, constructed from
the common law of England and the case
law of the United States on this topic of
general, as well as special interest.
First from the English common law:
''There is no Use in appointing two or
more Persons to exercise Judicial pow
ers unless they are to act together.
In Grindley VS.. Barker l b 81 p 222
which is regarded as leading case up
on this point, a condemnation by four
out of six triers of leather appointed
under a statute, the whole number hdUing
met and deliberdted, was sustained.
Eyre G. j. says: Il think it is now
pretty we'll established that where
number of persons are entrusted with
powers not of mere private confidence,
but in some respects, of general nature,
and all of them are regularly assembled,
the ma Ority will conclude the minority,
and their act will be the act of the
whole;" referring to the opinion of Lord
Hardwick, in Attorney General VS.. Davy,
2 Atl1, 212, -"when all have assembled
and communicated to each other the
necessary information, it is filter the
majority should decide" ~ II. "All
must concur in trying and then, al
though they be of different opinions,
some of one opinion, some of another,
yet all having tried, the majority shall
Dluu AL Ola uluSJ
try; but it does not therefore follow that
they must all decide the same way.
Each man is after due examination and
inquiry to decide according to the best
of his Judgment, and the question is to
iority." Secondly, from the United
States: From New Hampshire, "where
individuals or corpO rations give an au-
thpVifu Jointly t,Nt lrpa n
in order to bind the principal, all the
agents must act" From Michigan, las
a general proposition, it is undoubtedly
true that where several persons are APP
pointed to execute power or trust, and
no authority is given to a less number
than the whole to act, all must join in
its execution" From New York, "thG
rule seems to be well established that in
the exercise of public, as well as private
authority, whether it be ministerial or
judicial, all the persons to whom it is
committed must confer and act together,
unless there be provision that less
number may proceed. Where the au-
thority is public and the number such
as to admit of a majority, that will bind
the minority after all have duly met and
conferred 1t has long been per-
fectly well settled that where a statute
constitutes board OF commissioners or
other officers to decide any matter, but
makes no provision that majority shall
constitute quorum. all must be present
to hear and consult, though a majority
may then decide" From Maryland,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
North Garolina. -aanh brick. THE gen
erai rule, that in matters of public inter
est, the majority of those upon whom
the power or authority is conferred may
act, is recognized, provided all meet and
confer; but not vile the minority is ig-
norant of the transaction, and has no
opportunity to exercise its Legitimate in
fluence in the deliberation'' A few
more bricks from New York: "Where
powers are conferred upon number to
act collectively, and especially in matters
involving any discretion, it is an india
ton that the association if not the con-
currence of all is essential.
When persons are appointed by the law
to act as special tribunals of quasi
judicial character, both parties are en-
titled to the presence of all the judges,
and to have the benefits of the cOnsulUa-
ton of each with every other. All must
therefore meet and consult, but then n
majority may decide, 4 where a
public authority is conferred on individ-
uals mot on COURT who are to act jul
dicially, all must confer together, as
that is the object of having more than
cone or two, but that majority may de-
ide. 4 n A majority act for the whole,
when all have met. This holding, Peck
ham, j., says in the opinion would he
in accordance with common law princi-
pies" \ From Vermont, "The act
of the major part will be conclusive and
will be regarded as the act of the whole
provided all participate in the delibera-
lions. = If the authority, in mere
matter of mere private concern, be CON
fided to more than one agent, it is re-
quisite that all should join in the execu-
ton of the power, and they are jointly
responsible for each other; though the
cases admit the rule to be different in a
matter of public trust, or of power
conferred for public purposes;
and if all meet in the latter case, the act
of the majority will bind" quoting lit
terally- from the great American Com
mentator Chancellor Kent. There are a
few bricks made without straws," used
apparently for back-filling, but so few in
number and occupying so unimpOrtant
relation to the structure as not to i'm
pair the strength of the pyramid.
The cap-stone by our own court is in
these words in conclusion; I've must
hold that the certificate of majority of
the commissioners named in the instru-
ment of assent of the town of Mount Ia
Dor, all having met and deliberated, is