Page images

5. If a half-holiday is given, must it be a Saturday halfholiday?

Yes; if the half day is to be made up on other working days. 6. If the appropriations for the maintenance of institutions are fixed for the year, shall we be warranted in overrunning the same to comply with the provisions of the eight-hour law? No.



The Governor may affix his signature to registered bonds issued by the Commonwealth by means of a rubber stamp, provided such stamp is retained in his possession and applied by him, or, in his presence, by some one authorized by him to make such application.




July 31.

Replying to your letter of the 23d, in which you ask my To the opinion as to whether His Excellency the Governor can affix and Receiverhis name by a rubber stamp to registered bonds issued by the Commonwealth, or whether it is necessary for him to personally sign with his own hand, I have to say that in my opinion he may impress his name with a stamp instead of a pen, provided he keep the same in his possession and apply it himself or cause it to be applied in his presence. The Attorney-General of the United States, in an opinion (1 Op. Atty.-Gen. 670) to the President in reply to a similar question, decided "that the adoption and acknowledgment of a signature written by another makes it a man's own; that there will be great difficulty in maintaining the proposition as a legal one, that when the law required signing it means that it must be done with pen and ink; that a signature made with straw dipped in blood would be equally valid and obligatory; he may write his name in full or may write his initials or may print his initials with a pen; that pen may be made of a goose quill or of metal; and I see no legal objection to its being made in the form of a stamp or copper-plate. It is still his act; it flows from his assent, and is the evidence of that assent."

To the Tax
September 28.


PERSON. Under the provisions of R. L., c. 12, § 5, cl. 11, exempting from taxation among other specified articles of property, the "farming utensils of every person," such exemption should in general be confined to implements, tools and utensils used by any person in the pursuit of agriculture.

As used in such statute, the word "person" does not include a corporation.

Replying to your request for an opinion as to exemption from taxation by local assessors of farming utensils of every person, under R. L., c. 12, § 5, cl. 11, a list of articles which have in some instances been construed as exempt having been furnished me, I am of opinion that you should adopt a somewhat arbitrary rule. In my opinion the following would be exempt:

All hand tools for farming.

Plow, including "Riding Plow."


Planter, geared and otherwise.

Mowing machine.


Horse rake.

Reaper, including reaper and binder.

Potato digger.

Ensilage cutter.

Spray pump, also tank.


Wagon, where used principally for farm purposes.

Cart, where used principally for farm purposes.

Sled, where used principally for farm purposes.

Manure spreader.

Upon the other hand, the following would not be exempt:

Windmill, including pump.

Boiler (steam), also cooker.

Engine (steam), (gas), (portable), (stationary), (traction).

Power saw (for fire wood).

Fruit evaporator.

Cider mill and press.


Cream separator.

Cream cooler.

Honey extractor (centrifugal).


Wagon (other than farm wagon).

Cart (other than farm cart).

Sled (other than farm sled).



Harness (blankets, whips, robes).

I am of opinion that the word "person" as used in this statute does not include a corporation.

I find several decisions which hold that a wagon is a farm. utensil; also, under 20 Kan. 555, that a McCormick Advance reaper and mower is a farming utensil.

It is difficult to define what would or would not be exempt, on principle, but it would seem that exemptions should be confined to the farming utensils, meaning all those implements, tools and utensils used in the pursuit of agriculture and husbandry.




Where the derivative settlement of a mother which was not fully acquired subsequent to May 1, 1860, and did not prevent the subsequent acquisition of a settlement in the same place, was defeated and lost by the retroactive provision of R. L., c. 80, § 6, the settlement of a daughter derived from that of the mother subsequent to May 1, 1860, is not lost or affected by the loss of the settlement of the mother.

State Board

Replying to your request for an opinion as to whether the To the settlement of Amelia F. West was affected by the provisions of Charity. of section 6 of chapter 80 of the Revised Laws, the material September 28. facts are as follows:

Amelia F. West, born Dec. 25, 1862, at Tisbury, Mass., illegitimate, was committed to the Massachusetts School for Idiotic and Feeble-minded Youth Sept. 23, 1875, and has been


an inmate of that institution since that time as a charge to the town of Tisbury. Her mother, Mary F. West, was born in 1820 in Richmond, Va., and came to Tisbury, Mass., when a child, and lived in that town continuously until her death, Oct. 17, 1894. She was married in Tisbury, Jan. 27, 1840, to Edward F. West, and lived with him until his death, June 7, 1854. Mary F. West did not, as the widow of said Edward F. West, after May 1, 1860, live any period of five years without receiving relief as a pauper.

R. L., c. 80, § 6 (St. 1898, c. 425, § 2), is as follows:

Any settlement which was not fully acquired subsequent to the first day of May in the year eighteen hundred and sixty is hereby defeated and lost, unless such settlement prevented a subsequent acquisition of settlement in the same place; but if a settlement acquired by marriage is so defeated, the former settlement of the wife, if not also so defeated, shall be revived. A person who is absent from the commonwealth for ten consecutive years shall lose his settlement.

From these facts it appears that Mary F. West had, on Dec. 25, 1862, a settlement in Tisbury derived from her husband, Edward F. West. This settlement was not fully acquired subsequent to May 1, 1860. The existence of it did not prevent a subsequent acquisition of a settlement by Mary F. West, for she has not since that time lived any period of five years in that town without receiving relief as a pauper. Any settlement which she had prior to her marriage was not acquired subsequent to May 1, 1860, she having married Edward F. West in 1840. It follows that by the operation of Acts of 1898, c. 425, § 2 (R. L., c. 80, § 6), the settlement of Mary F. West in Tisbury was defeated and lost.

The question raised by the present question is whether the settlement of Amelia F. West, which was derived from her mother, was also, by the operation of this statute, defeated and lost.

R. L., c. 80, § 1, cl. 3, provides:

Illegitimate children shall have the settlement of their mother at the time of their birth if she then has any within the commonwealth.

In St. 1793, c. 34, this provision was in the following form:

[ocr errors]

Illegitimate children shall follow and have the settlement of their mother at the time of their birth, if any she shall then have, within the Commonwealth.

This statute was interpreted by the court in Boylston v. Princeton, 13 Mass. 381. In that case it was said:

The rule, as now established, is that illegitimate children shall have the settlement of their mother at the time of their birth; meaning, as we apprehend, that the settlement which the mother had at the time of the birth of the child should be the settlement of the child, until it should gain a new settlement by its own act.

This is even more clearly the meaning of the statute in its present form; consequently, Amelia F. West, by reason of her birth in the town of Tisbury and by reason of that fact alone, acquired a settlement in that town which was unaffected by any change in the settlement of her mother. The birth taking place after May 1, 1860, the settlement was fully acquired subsequent to that date, and it was consequently not defeated and lost by the operation of St. 1898, c. 425, § 2 (R. L., c. 80, § 6).

TRUST COMPANY-LOAN TO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL-"SURPLUS." A trust company, subject to the provisions of R. L., c. 116, § 34, may not legally loan money to a single individual in excess of one-fifth of its surplus accounts and paid-up capital, excluding the profit and loss account.

Commissioner 1906 October 16.

My opinion has been orally requested by you as to whether To the Bank the phrase "surplus account," in R. L., c. 116, § 34, shall be taken to include or exclude undivided profits. The section is as follows:

The total liabilities of a person, other than cities or towns, for money borrowed, including in the liabilities of a firm the liabilities of its several members, to such corporations having a capital stock of five hundred thousand dollars or more shall at no time exceed one-fifth part of the surplus account and of such amount of the capital stock as is actually paid up.

« PreviousContinue »