Case Name: Nathaniel French vs. City of Auburn
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1872
Citations: 62 Me. 452
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nathaniel French vs. City of Auburn.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 452–455

Head Matter:
Nathaniel French vs. City of Auburn.
No implied promise that a city will pay one who, without request, performs a duty incumbent upon the municipality.
The legislature, by Private Laws of 1869, c. 230, established a court in Auburn to be held ‘‘at such place as the city shall provide.” Upon the failure of the city to provide any place, the judge hired a room in which to hold the court; held, that there was no implied promise, upon the part of the city, resulting by implication of law from these facts, to pay the rent of such room.
ÍTor can a ratification of the hiring, or a promise to pay the rent, be inferred from a. knowledge on the part of the citizens and officials of the city, of the court being held in the room so hired, nor from the fact that the bills therefor were presented to, and referred in concurrence by, both branches of the city council, and no further action taken thereon.
On exceptions.
Assumpsit to recover for use of office furnished by the plaintiff for the Auburn Police Court for the city of Auburn, during the years of 1869 and 1870, he being the judge of that court from June 7, 1869, to March 20, 1871. This court was established by Private aud Special Laws of 1869, c. 230, which declares that it is to be held “af such place as the city shall provide.” The city made no provision of any place for the court, though requested by the plaintiff in writing to do so, and the judge hired a room in which it was held so long as he presided over it, and he paid the rent, which this suit was instituted to recover. The plaintiff handed his claims to the mayor, who presented them to the city council, and they were referred in concurrence, by both branches of that body, to the succeeding council, and were then referred to the committee on accounts, and no further action ever taken thereon.
An order for the procurement of rooms was introduced into and passed by one branch of the city council, and a committee appointed therefor, but the other branch never acted upon the matter.
A nonsuit was ordered, and the plaintiff excepted.
Olarence G. Frost, for the plaintiff.
Corporations, as well as individuals, may be held upon implied promises; and such a promise is inferred from the same course of action which raises that inference with regard to individuals. If one man sees and knows that another is performing for him a duty incumbent upon the former, thereby conferring upon him a great benefit, the law implies a promise to pay for the service so rendered ; and the same principle applies in the case of silent acquiescence on the part of that aggregation of individuals which compose a municipality, when a citizen relieves them by assuming to discharge a duty they have neglected. Their silence is a ratification of his acts.
Morrill dé Wing, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
No promise, express or implied, on the part of the defendants has been shown, nor do the facts proved constitute a ratification of the plaintiff's act in hiring a room for the use of the court, over which he presided, and paying the rent.
Exceptions overruled.