Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/272/272mass130.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:28:24+00:00

Document:
GEORGE H. BURT & others vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF TAUNTON & others.
Municipal Corporations, By-laws and ordinances, Officers and agents. Equity Jurisdiction, Suit by ten taxable inhabitants. Taunton.
(7) The allegations of intent on the part of the defendants to make the purchase under the authority of the vote, and of their bad faith, made out, in view of all the circumstances, a case for relief under the statute; and the demurrer properly was overruled.
BILL IN EQUITY under G. L. c. 40, § 53, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Bristol on June 18, 1929, and afterwards amended.
Several of the defendants demurred. The demurrers were heard by Carroll, J., and were overruled. The single justice thereupon reported the suit for determination by the full court.
H. F. Hathaway, (E. A. Hathaway with him,) for the defendants.
R. J. Regan, for the plaintiffs.
highest, were submitted to and opened by the committee, which reported to the municipal council without recommendation as to acceptance of any of the bids, and that by vote of five members constituting a majority of the municipal council the matter on June 11, 1929, was referred back to the committee with authority to purchase a motor pumper without regard to the amount of the bid or the type of the pumper; that two of the three members of the committee have openly asserted that they were in favor of and would vote for the purchase from one of the high bidders; that the low bidders were responsible, of good reputation and manufacturers of a high grade pumper in general and satisfactory use; that the defendants are about to expend money and incur obligations in the purchase of a motor pumper from the highest bidder in direct violation of the binding order of the municipal council, and that the defendants are acting in bad faith and not for the best interests of the city. Certain of the defendants demurred, assigning several causes, which so far as argued will be discussed.
The allegations of the bill are sufficient to show that the proposed expenditure of public money is impending and that it is not merely anticipatory. Fuller v. Trustees of Deerfield Academy, 252 Mass. 258. Morse v. Boston, 253, Mass. 247, 255. Reilly v. Selectmen of Blackstone, 266 Mass. 503, 511. Dowling v. Board of Assessors, 268 Mass. 480. The vote of the municipal council of June 11, 1929, was a vote to expend money. Prince v. Crocker, 166 Mass. 347, 358. Loring v. Westwood, 238 Mass. 9. No contention has been made that there was any invalidity in the order making appropriation for the purchase of the motor driven pumper. A reasonable presumption is to be made in favor of the action of the municipal council. Bryant v. Pittsfield, 199 Mass. 530, 532. The money for making the purchase was available on the allegations of the bill.
the municipal council of June 11, 1929, authorizing the committee to purchase the motor pumper without regard to the bids received or the type of motor, was invalid.
The allegations of intent on the part of the defendants to make the purchase under the authority of the vote, and of their bad faith, make out in view of all the circumstances a case for relief under the statute.

References: § 53
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.