Court Opinion

ID: 9733440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:07:51.431107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:41.510397
License: Public Domain

Condon, C. J.,
concurring in part. I concur in the court’s decision on the merits but I do not subscribe to its construction of the words “Unless otherwise provided” in G. L. 1956, §8-9-5. However, I am of the opinion that this question was not properly before the court for its determination since it is apparent that in any event the city solicitor was the acting probate judge de facto and as such the validity of his appointment could not be called in question collaterally-in the proceedings before him or on appeal to -the superior court. This question could only be raised directly in a case to which he is a party. Angell v. Steere, 16 R. I. 200.
*401Pontarelli & Berberian, Aram K. Berberian, for appellant.
Edwards & Angelí, William 'H. Edwards, Hogan & Hogan, Edward T. Hogan, for appellees. '
This is a widely accepted rule. Commonwealth v. Di-Stasio, 297 Mass. 347; 43 Am. Jur., Public Officers, §495, p. 241. In the cited case the court said at page 351: “The rights of third persoixs ought ixot to be prejudiced as they would 'be if the acts of a de facto officer were rendered void by undisclosed circumstances and secret flaws in his title. The basis of his authority is secondary to the main issues on trial. An attack upon the authority of a pulblic officer is commonly possible by a direct proceeding to test his title to office or -in other actions where the question is raised directly.”
Private persons are not permitted to question the title of such officers. It was said in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 441, that “For the good order and peace of society their authority is to be respected and obeyed until in some regular mode prescribed by law their title is investigated and determined.”
In the case at bax*, therefore, I think it would have been more consistent with this generally accepted principle of law “established from the earliest period, and repeatedly confirmed, by an unbroken current of decisions * * *,” 43 Am. Jur., Public Officers, §495, note 10, p. 242, if the court had refused to consider appellant’s collateral attack upon the validity of the acting probate judge’s appointment. By so refusing, it would have quite properly avoided the necessity of construing §8-9-5 and conferring as it has done by its construction thereof an extremely broad legislative power upon the municipalities of the state contrary, in my opinion, to the clear intent of the legislature.