Cragie v. Mellen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close in Cambridge, treading down his grass, subverting his soil, &c. The defendants pleaded the general issue, which was joined.
Read the full summary
Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close in Cambridge, treading down his grass, subverting his soil, &c. The defendants pleaded the general issue, which was joined. They also filed a brief statement, according to the statute of 1792, c. 41, alleging, in substance, that the locus in quo is a private or town way, laid out for the use and convenience of the inhabitants of Cambridge, and regularly approved by them ; and that the defendants, as surveyors of highways for that town, entered and made the same passable, as by law was required ; and this, they say, is the same breaking,…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
The first point relied upon by the plaintiff is, that the selectmen, when they laid out this road, did not make any *10estimate of the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and that in their return no notice is taken of these damages.
It is a sufficient answer to this objection, that the statute, authorizing the laying out of private ways by the selectmen, does not require damages to be estimated by them. It does provide that the party aggrieved shall be entitled to such recompense as he and the selectmen shall agree upon ; and it provides further, that, if there shall be no agreement by the…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Inhabitants of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Attorney General v. TarrMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Elliott v. Fair Haven & Westville RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1860
- McManus v. Inhabitants of WestonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Smith v. WeeksNew York Supreme Court · 1857
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.