Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/200/200mass252.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:04:28+00:00

Document:
Present: Knowlton, C. J., Morton, Loring, Sheldon, & Rugg, JJ.
Taunton. Municipal Corporations. Sewer Commissioners. Statute.
matter and their delay becomes unreasonable, the mayor of Taunton may remove them under the power given to him by St. 1895, c. 219, § 4, re-enacted in St. 1904, c. 384, § 9, which makes the sewer commissioners of the city of Taunton "subject to removal by the mayor for cause."
Sheldon, J. This is petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the respondent as mayor of the city of Taunton in removing the petitioners from their offices as members of the board of sewer commissioners of that city. At a hearing before a single justice of this court upon the petition and answer and the exhibits attached thereto, the petition was dismissed; and the case comes before us by an appeal from this order.
be assessed more than once. The lien hereinafter provided for shall attach to the parcel assessed. If payment has been made of any prior assessment or charge imposed in respect to any such land on account of any common sewer of said sytem, an allowance shall be made for such payment, and the owner shall be assessed for the remainder only. Said sewer commissioners shall certify all assessments made under this section to the collector of taxes of said city for collection. After receiving an assessment list, the collector shall forthwith send notice to each person assessed of the amount of his assessment, in like manner as notices of taxes are sent."
fixed uniform rate for assessments had been established, by competent experts, and all these things were matter of record. The necessary data for proceeding at once to make assessments as required by the statute referred to, on abutters on the twentyfour miles of sewers above described, were on file in the office of the sewer commissioners; but, as I find on the evidence, the respondents have negligently omitted to make or to take any steps towards making such assessments, I accordingly find that the first charge is sustained.
"On the question whether the neglect of the respondents thus found to comply with the requirements of the law referred to is sufficient cause to justify their removal from office, the circumstances are to be considered. The law which it is the duty of the respondents to obey, but which they have persistently disregarded, is entirely plain, and it was in evidence that their attention was called to it and to the necessity of proceeding under it, when they first took office. No valid excuse for their negligence has been offered by them, and none appears. They did not themselves testify at the hearing, but called Mr. Bellamy, their former associate, as a witness in their behalf. From a stipulation entered into at the hearing that if called they themselves would testify as Mr. Bellamy had testified, and from the argument of their counsel, the position which they take admits of no doubt. They give no intimation that if permitted to remain in office they will comply with the requirements of the law. On the contrary, they contend that they are the exclusive judges as to when, if at all, they shall take action under it, and in support of their contention they have called attention by their counsel to the case of Fairbanks v. Fitchburg, 132 Mass. 42, 48. The case is an authority against and not for the respondents' contention.
the entire sewer system is substantially completed it is impossible to determine its cost, and, therefore, until the happening of that event, the fixed uniform rate of assessment called for by the law cannot be established, it being necessary in fixing the rate to know the actual cost of all the sewers of the city. In other words, the theory advanced by Mr. Bellamy and concurred in by the respondents is that assessments in accordance with the requirements of the law cannot be made until substantially all the sewers of the city are completed. It is enough to say that it is not the actual cost, but the estimated cost, on which the rate is to be based, and that it may be a hundred years before the entire system is substantially completed, depending upon the growth of the city.
uniform rate based on the estimated average cost of all the sewers of the system. The methods to be employed by the assessing board in determining and laying the assessments are plainly stated in the law, and, in order that no injustice may be done in making assessments on abutters on old sewers, it is provided that allowance shall be made for any assessment which may have been paid in the past. The law is perfectly clear in itself. Moreover, it has been fully discussed and explained in official reports and documents, with which the respondents ought to be familiar.
sewer on West Water Street which cost about $30,000, and it was shown that they have made no assessment on abutters, but have contented themselves with imposing in a single instance a charge for the privilege of entering the sewer.
"Having found on the evidence that the first charge is true, and this being in my opinion sufficient cause for the removal of the respondents, James P. Dunn and William B. Granfield, from office, I do hereby by virtue of the authority vested in me by St. 1904, c. 384, § 9, remove them from office as members of the Board of Sewer Commissioners."
It is provided by St. 1895, c. 219, § 4, that the sewer commissioners of the city of Taunton "shall be subject to removal by the mayor for cause," and this is re-enacted in St 1904, c. 384, § 9. This is the same provision that was considered in Hogan v. Collins, 183 Mass. 43, in which it was said by this court that the decision of the mayor upon the facts "is not open to revision here, either to pass upon the weight of the evidence or to determine whether the evidence justified the finding. Farmington River Water Power Co. v. County Commissioners, 112 Mass. 206, 212." And in Gaw v. Ashley, 195 Mass. 173, it was held by this court that the official action of the mayor of a city under a power of removal "for cause" can be revised by this court only when there has been an arbitrary exercise of power, and the cause alleged for the removal is unreasonable and in law insufficient. And see to the same effect Ayers v. Match, 175 Mass. 489.
the remote future, when the whole system of sewers shall have been completed, so that the assessment may be based upon the actual cost of all the sewers, rather than upon their "estimated average cost," as the statute provides. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to construe the statute as requiring, or even allowing, such a delay as this, with the protracted uncertainty of both the amount and the time of payment of the incumbrance which, under § 4 of the statute, thus would be cast upon at least a large part of the land in the city for perhaps a very long period of time.
But even the present contention of the petitioners goes too far. The board of which they were members had doubtless a certain discretion as to the time of levying the assessment in question; but it does not follow that on this ground they could delay indefinitely to perform the duty cast upon them. The manifest intent of the statute is to require assessments to be made for completed sewers or sections of sewers upon the estates benefited thereby, as soon in each case as this reasonably can be done, so that the expense of construction may be borne in proper proportion by the general taxpayers and those who derive special benefits from the construction. Upon the findings of the mayor under the first charge, the petitioners neglected to take any action in this matter, and their delay became unreasonable. There is nothing in Fairbanks v. Mayor & Aldermen of Fitchburg, 132 Mass. 42, 48, which helps the petitioners. That case merely decides that an assessment finally made by an assessing board which is not restricted by any positive rule as to the time of making the assessment cannot be declared to be void because of a delay of some six years in making it. A very different question would have been presented if there had been a direct complaint against the members of that board for their delay. We cannot say that the ruling [Note p259-1] asked for by the petitioners should have been given, or that the cause of removal charged and found was insufficient.
The petitioners, apparently desiring to lay the foundation for a contention that the findings of the mayor were unwarranted, have, as they aver, set out in their petition the whole of the evidence presented to the mayor. Haven v. County Commissioners, 155 Mass. 467, 471. And although there is in the answer no admission of this averment and there has been no agreement upon the subject, still the averment is not denied in the answer. Weed v. Boston, 172 Mass. 28. But the petitioners have not contended that the findings were not warranted by the evidence, if their request for a ruling was rightly refused; and we have not felt at liberty to go beyond the record. This was not a case in which the respondent introduced extrinsic evidence to show that substantial justice did not require that the proceedings should be quashed, and thus opened the door to the petitioners to offer evidence upon that question. Ward v. Aldermen of Newton, 181 Mass. 432, and cases there cited.
The decree dismissing the petition must be affirmed.
J. B. Tracy W. E. Kelley, for the petitioners.
H. F. Hathaway, for the respondent.
"As the time of levying the assessment under section 3, chapter 384, of the Acts of 1904, was a matter within the discretion of the board, the respondents were within their rights as members of said board in not levying a general assessment and this charge is dismissed.
"The mayor refused so to rule, and your petitioners excepted to such refusal to rule.
"Because said proceedings were not in accordance with the common law and the rules thereof and that this respondent was not justified in law in making said removals.
"Because as a matter of law your petitioners were acting within their legal rights; that under the law it was within their discretion when the general assessment under chapter 384 of the Acts of 1904 should be levied."

References: § 4
 § 9
 v. 
 § 9
 § 4
 § 9
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.