Farwell v. City of Boston
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition, filed August 26, 1903, under St. 1903, c. 392, for damages to the property of the plaintiff by reason of the removal of the railroad of the Old Colony Railroad Company operated by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, in the abolition of the grade crossing at Dorchester Avenue in Boston under the provisions of St. 1897, c. 519. The answer, after a general denial, alleged that the petitioner in June, 1899, brought a petition against the respondent…
Read the full summary
Petition, filed August 26, 1903, under St. 1903, c. 392, for damages to the property of the plaintiff by reason of the removal of the railroad of the Old Colony Railroad Company operated by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, in the abolition of the grade crossing at Dorchester Avenue in Boston under the provisions of St. 1897, c. 519. The answer, after a general denial, alleged that the petitioner in June, 1899, brought a petition against the respondent for the same cause of action, that the case was heard before a jury and damages were awarded to the petitioner, and that…
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
This court having decided in Farwell v. Boston, 180 Mass. 433, that the petitioner was not entitled to’compensation under the St. of 1897, c. 519, § 4, by reason of his access to a railroad being cut off, the Legislature passed the St. of 1903, c. 392, changing the rule of law laid down by the court, but making the act take effect upon its acceptance by the city council of the city of Boston.
The question of the constitutionality of the act is a delicate one, as judgment had been entered on the petition for damages originally filed by the petitioner; but it is unnecessary to consider this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Farwell v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
3Cited by2 opinions
- Galligan v. LeonardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Dimick v. BarryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912