Murtha v. Lovewell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity, to enjoin an alleged nuisance, and for damages for its continuance. Hearing before Holmes, J., who, at the request of the parties, reported the case for the determination of the full court, such decree to be made as law and equity might require. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
The defendants do not now contend that their furnace for melting iron was not properly found by the justice of this court who heard the case to be a nuisance at common law, but they seek to justify their acts on the ground of certain so called licenses issued by the mayor and aldermen of Chelsea, under the Pub. Sts. c. 102, §§ 40-48. The first of these appears to be merely a street permit to use a portion of the street' in front of the premises for the deposit of building materials.
On March 5,1895, a license to erect a furnace for melting iron was granted to the defendants, with the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sawyer v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Commonwealth v. ParksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Quinn v. Lowell Electric Light Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- White v. KenneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Alter v. DodgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
3Cited by21 opinions
- Smith v. New England Aircraft Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- General Baking Co. v. Street CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Hakkila v. Old Colony Broken Stone & Concrete Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Strachan v. Beacon Oil Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Marshall v. HolbrookMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.