Legal Opinion
Peirson v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 7, 1906PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSheldon, J.
These were petitions under St. 1894, c. 548, §§ 8,9, and the acts in addition thereto, to recover compensation for damages done to an estate on Washington Street, Boston, by reason of the construction and maintenance of the respondent’s railway in front thereof, brought by the first named petitioners as the owner and lessees, and by the second petitioner as the mortgagee of that estate. Mary P. Tuckerman was not a party to the petitions as first brought.
At the trial in the Superior Court, it appeared that Mary P. Tuckerman owned the estate up to June 8, 1900, on which day she conveyed it to…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Capital Traction Co. v. HofSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Commonwealth v. TuckerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Tyler v. Judges of Court of RegistrationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Drury v. Midland RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Elmer v. FessendenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- People v. La MacChiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Commonwealth v. BellinoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Hubbard v. AllynMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Commonwealth v. SinclairMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Bothwell v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.