Vigeant v. City of Marlborough
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition, under Pub. Sts. c. 52, §§ 15,16, for a jury to assess damages occasioned by raising the grade of a street in front of the petitioner’s premises by a street railway company in the construction of its railway. Trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., who ruled that the claim could not be maintained and directed a verdict for the respondent. The petitioner alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
We are of opinion that the verdict for the defendant was rightly ordered. The action of the city govern- , ment granting the street railway company the right to build its railway along certain streets was not an order for specific repairs or for a change of grade within the meaning of Pub. Sts. c. 49, and if that action had been such an order the present petition could not be maintained, because it was not seasonably brought. The raising of the street in front of the petitioner’s premises was the act of the railway company alone, and was not something done for the purpose of keeping the way…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Purinton v. Inhabitants of SomersetMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
3Cited by6 opinions
- White v. Blanchard Brothers Granite Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Hyde v. Boston & Worcester Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Hewett v. Inhabitants of CantonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Underwood v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Garvey v. Inhabitants of RevereMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.