City of Salem v. Maynes
| Decision Date | 28 November 1877 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | City of Salem v. William Maynes & another |
Essex. Bill in equity, filed July 19, 1877, against William Maynes and Henry W. Balcomb, under the St. of 1872, c. 243 [*] for the removal of a wooden building alleged to have been erected in violation of an ordinance of the city of Salem, passed on April 23, 1877, establishing the limits of a fire district, within which the building was situated, and providing as follows:
"No person shall erect, or cause to be erected, within said district, any wooden building of more than fifteen feet in height from the foundation thereof (which foundation shall not exceed three feet from the level of the street) to the highest point of the roof, and covering an area of more than one thousand square feet of land; provided, that wooden buildings to be used for the purposes of dwelling-houses, not exceeding a height of forty feet above the grade of the street, and not covering an area of more than two thousand square feet of land, may be erected at a distance not less than eight feet from any other wooden building, measuring from wall to wall; and provided also, that any wooden dwelling-house may be erected at a less distance than eight feet from any other wooden building, by constructing the same with brick walls, either at the sides or ends thereof, as the inspector of buildings shall designate."
The case was submitted to this court upon the following facts:
On March 19, 1877, the defendant Maynes made a contract in writing with the defendant Balcomb, for the erection of a framed dwelling-house in accordance with certain specifications, by the terms of which Balcomb was to furnish the materials for and erect a portion of the building within eight feet of a wooden building upon adjoining land. The work under the contract was actually begun on March 14, 1877.
At the time of the passage of the ordinance, the timber and other material for the building had been purchased by Balcomb, the timber cut to dimension, including that for the end of the building in question, and work had been begun upon the cellar.
On May 15, 1877, before the cellar was completed, and before any portion of the superstructure was erected, the inspector of buildings called the attention of the defendants to the ordinance above named, and informed them that measures would be taken to enforce its provisions, and the defendants informed him of the existence of the contract referred to and insisted upon their right to go on.
On June 27, 1877, notices of their violation of the ordinance were served upon the defendants by the inspector of buildings, at which time the sills and the whole or a portion of the floor had been laid on the part of the building in question.
The western wall of a projection or L of the building, as finished, is twenty-two feet high above the foundation, and fifteen and one half feet wide, and stands at the distance of about eleven inches from the building on adjoining land above referred to, and parallel with the eastern side thereof, and is constructed wholly of wood.
Decree for the plaintiff.
J....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Crawford
... ... v. Patterson Tobacco Co., 169 U.S. 311; Plumley v ... Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 461; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, ... 183 U.S. 238; Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86; Gundling ... v ... Cincinnati v. Steinkamp, 54 Ohio St. 284; Salem v. Maynes, ... 123 Mass. 372; State v. Johnson, 114 N. C., 846; Considine v ... Insurance Co., ... ...
-
Lerch v. City of Duluth
...v. Thralkill, 84 Ga. 169; Clark v. City, 85 Ind. 276; Commissioners v. Covey, 74 Md. 262; First National v. Sarlls, 129 Ind. 201; City v. Maynes, 123 Mass. 372. That the power to pass ordinances or make rules or regulations with reference to the prevention of fires is derived from the polic......
-
City of Des Moines v. Manhattan Oil Co.
... ... of the opinion that it did not exceed its authority or abuse ... its discretion. City of Salem v. Maynes , 123 Mass ... II ... Considerable attention has been given by counsel to the ... proposition that a gasoline and ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. MaLetsky
...and to provide for the inspection and fix the mode of use of such buildings. This is within the principle of many decisions. Salem v. Maynes, 123 Mass. 372; Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 144 Mass. 523, N.E. 929, 59 Am. Rep. 113, stated in Com. v. Sisson, 189 Mass. 247, 253, 75 N.E. 619,......