Crocker v. Boston Electric Light Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, originally brought by the city of Boston, and later amended by substituting as plaintiff's George G. Crocker and others, constituting the Boston transit commission, appointed under St. 1894, c. 548, § 23, suing for the benefit of the city of Boston, for $1,200.64, paid by the plaintiffs for removing and relocating a conduit pipe of the defendant, deemed by the transit commission to interfere with the construction of the subway, after the refusal of the defendant to…
Read the full summary
Contract, originally brought by the city of Boston, and later amended by substituting as plaintiff's George G. Crocker and others, constituting the Boston transit commission, appointed under St. 1894, c. 548, § 23, suing for the benefit of the city of Boston, for $1,200.64, paid by the plaintiffs for removing and relocating a conduit pipe of the defendant, deemed by the transit commission to interfere with the construction of the subway, after the refusal of the defendant to remove it as required by § 36 of the same statute. Writ dated August 24, 1899, and amended by the substitution of the…
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
This is an action by the transit commissioners of the city of Boston to recover the expense incurred by them in removing and relocating certain conduits for the wires of the defendant on the corner of Boylston and Tremont Streets in the city of Boston. The first count is for the expense of removing the old conduits and the second is for that of reconstructing the conduits in the new location.
By § 36 of St. 1894, c. 548, the Boston transit commission were authorized to order “ the removal or relocation of any conduits” which “it deems to interfere with the construction or operation of ” the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Boston & Maine Railroad v. T. Stuart & Son Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Murray v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914