Commonwealth v. Lennon
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint, to the Third District Court of Eastern Middlesex' for violating c. 44, § 26 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Cambridge, which provides that “ No person shall place or cause to be placed upon any sidewalk any lumber, iron, coal, trunk, bale, box,, crate, cask, package, article, or thing whatsoever, whether of the same description or not, so as to obstruct a free passage for travellers for more than fifteen minutes.”
Read the full summary
Complaint, to the Third District Court of Eastern Middlesex' for violating c. 44, § 26 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Cambridge, which provides that “ No person shall place or cause to be placed upon any sidewalk any lumber, iron, coal, trunk, bale, box,, crate, cask, package, article, or thing whatsoever, whether of the same description or not, so as to obstruct a free passage for travellers for more than fifteen minutes.” The defendant justified under an execution duly issued by said District Court in an action brought therein to recover possession of the house described in the…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
The validity of the ordinance is not questioned, ' nor do we see any ground for questioning it. The defendant justifies on the ground that he acted as a public officer, and in obedience to a writ of execution ordering him to cause one Halli*436day to have possession of the tenement from which the furniture was removed. But the fact that the defendant was a constable did not put him above the law, and the writ did not require him to disregard it. For if we assume that the defendant’s duty required him to remove the furniture irrespective of any request to him, Fiske v. Chamberlin, 103 Mass. 495,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Witbeck v. . Van RensselaerNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Hamberger v. SeaveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Fiske v. ChamberlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by1 opinion
- Shemanski v. SairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954