Bent v. Woodward Emery
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity, filed October 8,1898, by the owners of certain lands and flats on the South Bay, so called, in Boston, to restrain the board of harbor and land commissioners from dredging the same. Hearing before Holmes, J., who, at the request of the parties, reserved the case for the consideration of the full court. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
It is admitted that the defendants, the board of harbor and land commissioners, intend to dredge flats belonging to the plaintiffs, and to remove from them a substantial *496quantity of earth, and the question is whether they have power to do it under St. 1897, c. 486, § 5, or more especially, St. 1898, c. 278, § 3. More specifically, the questions are whether the dredging amounts to a taking of property, and if so, whether adequate provision is made for compensation, or whether the dredging can be justified under the police power or otherwise without compensation.
We think that it must be…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Sage v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Connecticut River Railroad v. County CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. SpeechlyMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Weaver v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Stevens v. City of SalisburyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
- James Millar Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Inhabitants of Belmont v. New England Brick Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Durgin v. MinotMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- State Highway Commissioner v. KregerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1920
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.