Legal Opinion
Gray v. City of Cambridge
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 27, 1905PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
[After the foregoing statement of the ease.] We are of opinion first, that the master’s construction of the Stearns grant is substantially correct; and second, that pipes laid under this grant can be used as supply pipes only and cannot be used as distribution pipes.
What are the terms of the grant ? They are (1) “ to enter upon a strip of land fifteen feet wide,” which strip of land is (2) “situated in said Cambridge and lying between Reservoir Street and land of Josiah Coolidge,” (3) “ for the purpose of laying one or more water pipes,” which pipes are to be used (4) “ for conveying water…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Adams v. FrothinghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Inhabitants of Stoughton v. BakerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Gloucester Water Supply Co. v. City of GloucesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Inhabitants of Deerfield v. Connecticut River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Hannefin v. BlakeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Foot v. BaumanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
- Bigelow Carpet Co. v. WigginMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Prentiss v. City of GloucesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Lawrence v. Town of ConcordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
- Oldfield v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.