§ 70. Implied powers. It is clear that it would be impossible to mention specifically every duty required of an officer, and so powers are implied from those expressly conferred by the appropriate authority. The rule as to implied powers, as stated by Throop, is, "that in addition to the powers expressly given by statute to an officer or board of officers, he or it has, by implication, such additional powers as are necessary for the due and efficient exercise of the powers expressly granted, or as may be fairly implied" (2).

§ 71. Statutory and common law powers. "Where the office is a new one, or one unknown to the common law, the nature and extent of the authority and the terms, manner and conditions of its exercise must be set forth, in some express enactment, with sufficient clearness and fullness to enable it to be interpreted and executed with reasonable certainty. Where, however, the office is one which was recognized and regulated by the common law, while it is undoubtedly competent for the law-making power to expand or curtail its limits or declare the manner in which it is to be exercised, yet where this has not been done, but, as is customary in the case of sheriffs, coroners, constables, and other common-law officers, the office is simply created by name without any definition of its powers or duties, it will be presumed that the intention. was that the office should be exercised as at common law, and the common-law incidents, powers and limitations will attach to it" (3).

(2) Throop, Public Officers, sec. 452.

§ 72. Powers after expiration of term. Even aside. from the doctrine of de facto officers (§§ 44-49, above), an officer may be entitled to complete certain unfinished work after the completion of his term. Thus in Lawrence v. Rice (4) it was held that where a deputy sheriff had attached certain property he was bound to keep it safely until thirty days after judgment, even though his term of office had expired in the meantime; and Chief Justice Shaw said: "It seems to be a well settled rule of law, a rule of the common law recognized and confirmed by statute, that when an executive officer has begun a service, or commenced the performance of a duty, and thereby incurred a responsibility, he has the authority and indeed is bound to go on and complete, although his general authority, as such officer, is superseded by his removal, or his derivative authority terminated by the determination of the office of his principal."

§ 73. Territorial jurisdiction. Acts outside an officer's jurisdiction are void. In the case of Page v. Staples (5) the plaintiff brought action against the defendant, who was a deputy sheriff of Providence county, for false imprisonment, because in conducting him to the county jail in Providence county Staples had carried him through a part of Kent county. The supreme court of Rhode Island considered that the plaintiff had a good cause of action. It said: "We do not think that the defendant can justify the taking of the plaintiff through a part of Kent county for the purpose of committing him to the jail in Providence county. In the absence of statutory provi

(4) 12 Metcalf, 527.

sions, the power of a sheriff is limited to his own county. He is to be adjudged as sheriff in his own county and not elsewhere. He cannot, therefore, execute a writ of his own county elsewhere and if he attempts to do so becomes a trespasser. The only exceptions to this principle are, that having a prisoner in his custody upon a writ of habeas corpus, he has power, by virtue of the writ, to travel through other counties if necessary in order to take his prisoner to the place where the writ is returnable, and he may, also, upon fresh pursuit, retake a prisoner who has escaped from his custody into another county." The same principles apply to other territorial officers.

§ 74. Jurisdiction of the person. Cases where officers go outside their territorial jurisdiction are comparatively rare, but cases where officials have been within their territorial jurisdiction but have attempted to exercise authority over persons outside have been frequent. Perhaps the most frequent examples of this on the part of administrative officials have been in cases of personal taxation. The old common law rule was that a person should be taxed on his personal property where he lived, and this was the law prevailing in New York in the case of Mygatt v. Washburn (6), where the plaintiff had moved from one town to another while the proceedings to make out the assessment were going on but before the assessment had finally been made. His name was placed on the assessment roll of the first town nevertheless, a warrant issued for the collection of the tax and his personal property sold. He brought an action against the assessor

and obtained judgment. The court said: "The plaintiff, therefore, was not subject to the jurisdiction of the assessors. In placing his name on the roll, and adding thereto an amount as the value of his personal property they acted without authority. They are, therefore, responsible to the plaintiff for the damages which ensued." In the subsequent case of Bell v. Pierce (7) the law of New York had been modified so that when a person resided in two or more towns during the year his principal place of business was to be considered his residence on the day of assessment. The plaintiff in the case had a home in Buffalo and one in the town whose assessors he was suing in this case, and on the day of assessment was actually occupying the latter, but he claimed that his principal place of business was Buffalo and that accordingly the assessors had had no jurisdiction over him and were liable to damages. The court held that the residence gave the jurisdiction and that "where the principal business of the plaintiff was transacted was a matter of fact, to be ascertained by proof and to be settled by judicial determination. This determination was to be made by the assessors. It was to be made upon proof presented, or, if none was presented, by the best means of knowledge possessed by them. They are not liable for an erroneous decision of a question which they had jurisdiction to decide."

§ 75. Jurisdiction as to subject matter. The principle of the last two cases that the determination of administrative officers may be final as to questions within their

jurisdiction but not as to questions of their jurisdiction, finds frequent application when the question is one of authority over the subject matter. Thus in the case of People v. Board (8), where the act of a board of health in declaring certain dams nuisances was involved, the court said: "Boards of health under the acts referred to cannot, as to any existing state of facts, by their determination make that a nuisance which is not in fact a nuisance. They have no jurisdiction to make any order or ordinance abating an alleged nuisance unless there be in fact a nuisance. It is the actual existence of a nuisance that gives them jurisdiction to act." And this seems to be the general rule as to nuisances. In the case of Raymond v. Fish (9), however, the court considered that the jurisdiction of the health authorities extended even to a conclusive determination of the fact of nuisance. It said: "The statute does not mean to destroy property which is not a nuisance, but who shall decide whether it is so? All legal investigations require time, and cannot be thought of. If the board of health are to decide at their peril, they will not decide at all. They have no greater interest in the matter than others, further than to do their duty; but duty, hampered by a liability for damages for errors committed in its discharge, would become a motive of very little power. It would seem to be absolutely necessary to confer upon some constituted body the power to decide the matter conclusively, and to do it summarily, in order to accomplish the object the statute has in view. We think this has been done."

(8) 140 N. Y. 1.