Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1893

McDermott v. Lapham

McDermott v. Lapham
Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Decided June 3, 1893 · PER CURIAM.
27 A. 220; 18 R.I. 295; 1893 R.I. LEXIS 29

Counsel

Willard B. Tanner Edward L. Gannon, for petitioners. Albert R. Greene, for respondents.

McDermott v. Lapham

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the question whether or not a list of names from which supervisors are'to be selected is presented by a proper' town committee, is not a jurisdictional fact, and therefore not reviewable on a petition for a writ of certiorari. The statute, Pub. Laws E. I. cap. 920, § 16, of May 1, 1891, makes it the peremptory duty of the town council to appoint supervisors who shall be of the opposite political parties ; the provision that they are to be selected from a 'list presented by the town committees of the opposite political parties appears to be incidental to the appointment as affording a convenient mode of furnishing names to the council from which to make a selection. It would apparently be their duty to make the appointment whether the lists were presented to them or not.

Petition denied and dismissed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.