Bishop v. North Adams Fire District
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition to the Superior Court, for a jury to assess the damages for an alleged taking by the respondent of the petitioner’s land in Williamstown. Trial before Maynard, J., who, at the respondent’s request, ruled that, upon the pleadings and evidence, the petitioner could not recover, and directed the jury to return a verdict for the respondent; and the petitioner alleged exceptions. The facts' appear in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Petition to the Superior Court, for a jury to assess the damages for an alleged taking by the respondent of the petitioner’s land in Williamstown. Trial before Maynard, J., who, at the respondent’s request, ruled that, upon the pleadings and evidence, the petitioner could not recover, and directed the jury to return a verdict for the respondent; and the petitioner alleged exceptions. The facts' appear in the opinion. The case was argued at the bar in September, 1896, and after-wards was submitted on briefs to all the judges.
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
The St. of 1889, c. 144, authorized, in § 1, the North Adams Fire District, for the purpose of supplying said district, the inhabitants of North Adams, and the inhabitants of that portion of Williamstown lying adjacent and contiguous to the proposed main line of pipe through which the water was to be conducted, with pure water, for the extinguishment of fires, and for domestic and other purposes, to take by purchase or otherwise the waters of a certain brook and its tributaries in Williamstown, and convey the water through Williamstown and North Adams; and to 61 take and hold by gift,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pierce v. DrewMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Rensselaer and Saratoga R.R. Co. v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Attorney General v. Metropolitan RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Prout v. Inhabitants of the Fire District in PittsfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Fitch v. New York, Providence & Boston RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- United Electric Light Co. v. Deliso Construction Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Donohue v. City of NewburyportMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Iron City Automobile Co. v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Herold v. C. J. Hughes & Hamilton Gas Corp.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1955
- City of Dallas v. HalfordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.