Case Name: Albert W. Curtis vs. Inhabitants of Pembroke
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1865-10
Citations: 11 Allen 92
Docket Number: 
Parties: Albert W. Curtis vs. Inhabitants of Pembroke
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 92–92

Head Matter:
Albert W. Curtis vs. Inhabitants of Pembroke
A citizen of a town who enlisted in the military service of the United States after a promise of the town to pay a monthly sum to each citizen thereof who should so enlist had been terminated, under St. 1861, c. 222, § 2, by the lapse of ninety days, cannot maintain any action against the town to recover the bounty so voted.
Contract brought by an inhabitant of Pembroke to recover bounty money voted by.that town to enlisted soldiers. Judgment was rendered for the defendants in the superior court, upon agreed facts which are sufficiently stated in the opinion • and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
J. K. Hayward, for the plaintiff.
B. W. Harris, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Gray, J.
This plaintiff's claim is founded upon the vote quoted in the opinion in the next preceding case. Grover v. Pembroke, ante, 88. But this case is essentially different from that. The plaintiff produces no evidence whatever of any contract by the town with him or of any action of the town by which he was induced to become a soldier. He never enlisted in the militia at all, and his enlistment into the service of the United States was nearly four months after this vote was passed by the town, and three months after the St. of 1861, c. 222, took effect. Upon any possible construction, no contract, or form of contract, had been made between him and the town when that statute went into operation. No such contract was therefore ratified by that statute. All similar contracts for the future were absolutely prohibited by it. And the town never renewed its offer afterwards. If it had done so, and the plaintiff had accepted the offer, their express contract might have been ratified by the St. 1863, c. 38. But we cannot imply such a contract in the absence of proof. It is more reasonable to suppose that both the town and the plaintiff understood the offer contained in the vote of the town to be withdrawn or annulled by the St. of 1861. The reasons on which we have held in Grover's case that a contract which once existed in form, and had been ter minated by the St. of 1861, was not revived by the St. of 1863 apply with increased force to this case.
Judgment for the defendants.