Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 44, § 2 (2026)

Limitations and restrictions upon manner of incurring debt

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 2. Except as otherwise expressly permitted by law, cities, towns and districts shall incur debts only in the manner of voting and within the limitations as to amount and time of payment prescribed in this chapter; but this section shall not be construed as prohibiting any city, town or district from placing additional restrictions, consistent with this chapter, upon the manner of incurring debt, nor as affecting the right of any city, town or district to incur debt under any special act which has or shall become effective after January first, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, or at any time in the case of debt of the city of Boston for tunnel or transit purposes; but no debt may be authorized under a general or special act except by a two-thirds vote, unless the act so provides. All provisions of law providing for sinking funds for the payment of debt of the city of Boston incurred for transit or tunnel purposes shall continue to be applicable to said debt.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1923–1998 · leading case: Opinion of the Justices to the Senate & the House of Representatives, 168 N.E.2d 858 (Mass. 1960).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Opinion of the Justices to the Senate & the House of Representatives, 168 N.E.2d 858 (Mass. 1960). “G. L. c. 44, §§ 2, 7, 31, 31A, 32. The Legislature may reasonably conclude that the largest city in the Commonwealth, in the heart of a great metropolitan area, may be subject to problems and conditions not found in comparable degree in other communities.”

Begley v. Bd. of Appeal of Boston, 208 N.E.2d 799 (Mass. 1965). · cites it 2× “G.L.c. 44, §§ 2, 7, 31, 31A, 32. The Legislature may reasonably conclude that the largest city in the Commonwealth, in the heart of a great metropolitan area, may be subject to problems and conditions not found in comparable degree in other communities.”

Quinn v. Rent Control Bd., 45 Mass. App. Ct. 357 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “30B; G. L. c. 44, §§ 2, 31; and certain Peabody spending ordinances.”

Twombly v. Billerica, 159 N.E. 630 (Mass. 1928). “By mistake, or under some misapprehension, a payment had been made out of one of these appropriations instead of out of the general appropriation for highways, so that, when the contract came to be made, it was discovered that there was not quite enough in the available…”

Adams v. Townsend Schoolhouse Bldg. Comm., 139 N.E. 803 (Mass. 1923). “But this vote to borrow $60,000 could be reconsidered at a subsequent town meeting, and although it was passed by a two thirds vote, as required by G. L. c. 44, §§ 2, 7, it could be reconsidered by a vote of the majority of the voters at a special town meeting called for the…”

Metro. Dist. Comm'n v. City of Cambridge, 424 N.E.2d 272 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “See also in this regard, G. L. c. 44, §2. 4. The city also asserts that relief in the nature of mandamus against a municipal corporation is not appropriate in these circumstances.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.