*1 386 H. imposed. Kingsbury Bazeley, v. N. On less is 13.”

state, a tax Caskey quoted approved was contrary, the above 441. “From the above it is clear that all State, 93 N. v. Caskey residuary legatee is to'tax what receives.” is entitled State supra. State, v. adjustment that an by of the fact the executors made

Here, reason amounting against $100,000, claims estate widow’s of the residuary legatees by that coming into the hands less amount will of had been it would have been the testator than amount according clearly to its terms. This situation effect .take allowed quoted: “If virtue language above of federal within the comes any passes reason a amount under the laws or other less legislation (Italics state, imposed.” supplied). tax is a less of this distinguish Caskey opinion to case made in the attempt loss due to a nothing. There the “was sale executors comes falling market.” Here the loss was due bonds a of stocks and making with widow. the executors settlement the conduct without a difference and no reason appears to be distinction This deciding be why any applied other should appears It Caskey decision. that which invoked case than present Caskey beyond that the loss control that in the said any legatees. consequence, If this fact is which does case, may assumed, any it in the state- be the absence appear contrary record, in the the action the executors to the ment residuary legatees. beyond the control equally Coös, No. 1, 1949. Feb. Amey Pittsburg a. v. School District & a.

Holman J. *3 Upton (Mr. F. Upton F. Richard Upton Richard and Robert W. plaintiffs. orally), for the Lyons Davis, Shafto, for the & & defendant

Palmer, Dodge, Chase Inc. of and C. Duane Ammi Cutter Massachusetts

Hinkley Hinkley, R. orally), for all defendants. (Mr. Cutter the of Massachusetts Aldrich majority of the votes more than a two-thirds J. Since Johnston, adopted, and it declared the favor of the article was were cast 2 and in the warrant. Words Phrases passed as stated article ed.) 485. (Perm, of district was void allege that the vote the because plaintiffs

The delegate power of or to to so fix the term the bonds the do to it failed board. to the school passed at town- general application that votes principle of

“It a they fall liberally If within auth- construed. meetings be should ingenious . . . town, distinctions will be un- of powers orized ap- be to, when the effect would to defeat the necessarily resorted admittedly in a matter within their of the voters intention parent 72, Davis, London v. 73 N. 76. On New province.” legislative thought that if an is sus- expresses ordinance court page constructions, prevail pre- one must which will that of two ceptible page 80, At validity. serve its it “As said: the vote the town this requires improbable to effective, case the consent court be it is attempted entirely that the town to do an act that was useless.” The district did not the maturities of it determine the bonds but did ex- pressly authorize the school board to issue them. Unless the vote is delegate power construed to the board discretion to exercise its fixing place of such time the rate providing and of bonds, thereof, sale no then vote thing. effect and the did a futile of the vote to authorize the board issue the bonds implied delegation

a permissible authority definite amount of all reasonably necessary to do issue, whatever was such unless effect contrary a intention was shown. for There is more reason even application where, present case, necessary this inas conduct described the statute to which made in reference is guide. questioned vote as It is not power to fix the ma- turities could under c. 72, be It. s. 10. This is not such as Lovering, attempted case Govev. 3 N. H. where a town delegate power to the selectmen the of money decide the amount for a purpose. needed certain Nor it can that in denied the ab- sence of action the district such necessary issue Moreover, the bonds the board. no there is evidence that the district intended to this delegate exercise itself rather than it to the board. The vote was meeting. Ordinarily at an annual *4 meeting another would year. not be held for a If the district had intended that the board should power, not have a vote could this readily have fixing been framed and for such maturities the bonds as the district chose.

In the of relationship similar selectmen, towns and it has been held by particular that a vote the by implies former for a act the latter authority for necessary performance such acts of as are to the the expressly authorized act. In New Davis, supra, London v. the town highway upon voted to discontinue a property condition that a owner expense would at her highway build to place take its and to instruct lay the highway. selectmen to out new the It held that the se- implied authority lectmen had to apply Superior Court for the of highway. implies discontinuance the old of “The the vote steps that all further necessary were to be taken that to render were the of effective; action town the and the furnish statutes referred to authority filing sufficient action the of the this selectmen petition.” Id., 80. legislative expressly authorized act which it has been held that a

So adjust and settle certain ac- governor negotiate, and council necessary implication in- favor of the state or claims in counts attorney and whatever else was authority appoint an to do cluded of proper execution necessary for the and efficient reasonably Justices, 601, H. Opinion 72 N. power. of agents the school are not of of a school board While members meaning public officials, yet so far ordinary but are in the district agency of district, general from the law they as derive This of authority granted. of the extent applies to as follows: “Un- Restatement, Agency, s. 35 general is stated law authority to conduct a transaction includes agreed, less otherwise usually accompany it, to it, which are incidental authority to do acts also, it.” Davison v. reasonably necessary accomplish See or are involved Parks, element of custom is here N. 262. The to fix the of the deciding board had maturities whether the implied it is of the is unless But the vote district vain bonds issued. power. delegated is this board argued is that even the school authorized It also board twenty-year bonds, must mature over the maximum issue such bonds years. period true, of ten If this is the shorter period rather than The bonds void. law of the board was unauthorized may of fix- board “the discretion is clear that school of of payment of and the such ing place the time and rate L., 72, s. 10. It bonds, providing of for the sale thereof.” R. c. 72, 5,c. s. 1: is-provided 1947, in R. c. s. as amended Laws payment years first shall be made not later than two and the “The twenty of the bonds years last not later than after the date ...” The for each of the men- or notes issued therefor. time stated clearly nothing or payments maximum. There in the vote tioned meeting any of of the record to indicate intention period twenty years. district voters in favor a maximum necessary implication upon rest claim cannot doctrine twenty years is more spreading bond maturities over no neces- sary period years. advantages pre- over ten There than are *5 paid using miums costs the shorter term for the life upon imposed has the bonds. Since the district no limitation power of the school board which the statutes and which defined district, law not curtail impliedly to it will power. discretionary of this had to fix the term exercise Some one action of the be valid. Since the bonds district remaining not, party do so was only did that could board. impliedly delegate least to the school board vote did at fix of the bonds and this time choosing period twenty years limited the maximum

payments. questions Each of first is answered two the Court affirmatively. affirmative, negative third in the fifth

Bill dismissed. Judgment defendants respects the said bonds in all constitute general Pittsburg valid obligations of District. School Duncan, J., expressing opinion without an of R. as to the effect 21, c. s. doubted that the the district was sufficient delegate authority to the school board to fix the terms the bonds: Blandin, J., was absent: the others concurred.

Hillsborough, No. 3757. 1,Mar.

Andrew L. Brunel a.

v. Building

The Nashua Loan& Association.