Inhabitants of Easthampton v. Hill
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tobt, under the Pub. Sts. c. 53, § 9, to recover the penalty-provided by a by-law of the plaintiff town for failing to remove snow from the sidewalk adjoining the defendant’s tenement and land fronting on Pleasant Street in that town.
Read the full summary
Tobt, under the Pub. Sts. c. 53, § 9, to recover the penalty-provided by a by-law of the plaintiff town for failing to remove snow from the sidewalk adjoining the defendant’s tenement and land fronting on Pleasant Street in that town. The by-law is as follows : “ 1st. The tenant, occupant, and, in case there shall be no tenant, the owner, or person, or corporation having the care of any land or building fronting on any street in the village where there is a concrete, stone, brick, or plank sidewalk, shall, after the ceasing to fall of any snow, ice, or sleet, within twenty-four hours cause…
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
We have no doubt that the word “ building,” in the by-law of the plaintiff town, is sufficient to describe the part of the house which had been vacated by the defendant’s tenant, and which was then in the care of the defendant as owner. If the by-law in question had contained the words “ building or tenement,” the word “ building ” might have to be construed as meaning the entire building, in order to give effect to the word, as was held in Commonwealth v. McCaughey, 9 Gray, 296. But where the word “ building ” alone is used, it is broad enough to include a tenement. See Commonwealth v. Lee,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. WatsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Commonwealth v. QuinlanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Commonwealth v. LeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- Blitzkrieg Amusement Corp. v. Rubenstein Bros.City of New York Municipal Court · 1945