Boles v. City of Boston

Decision Date31 January 1884
Citation136 Mass. 398
PartiesLevi Boles v. City of Boston
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Suffolk. Petition to the Superior Court for the assessment of damages for land taken by the respondent, under an order passed April 13, 1882, to widen Portland Street. Trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:

The petitioner was the owner of an estate at the corner of Portland Street and Sudbury Street, containing about 3089 square feet, having a frontage of 44.75 feet on Portland Street and of 71.26 feet on Sudbury Street, upon which there was a block of three wooden buildings, having brick partition walls between them parallel with Portland Street, into which the floor timbers of the buildings were put. These buildings fronted on Sudbury Street, were three stories high, of rather slight construction, and thirty years old. The lower stories were let for stores, and the upper stories for mechanical purposes, with entrances on Sudbury Street. For the purpose of widening Portland Street, the respondent took of said premises a strip at the corner of Portland Street and Sudbury Street 44.75 feet on Portland Street and 20.55 feet on Sudbury Street, leaving of the building at the corner a strip about six feet in width.

The petitioner offered evidence tending to prove that the remaining portion of the corner building was of little or no value if used by itself; that it would not be a reasonable expenditure and investment to erect a new front wall on Portland Street for the purpose of utilizing the remainder of this building by itself, but that it was the most advantageous and prudent use of the estate to take down the entire remainder of the block and erect a new structure upon the estate; that he did take down the remainder of the block and erect a new and substantial brick structure upon the remaining land, as soon as he reasonably could; that the premises, before the taking, were occupied by different persons as tenants at will of the petitioner; and that they continued to occupy them and pay rent therefor until July 1 1882, when the buildings were taken down.

The petitioner was then asked by his counsel how long it was after he took down the building before the new building was in condition to use. To this question the respondent objected, on the ground that the loss of rent of the portions of the petitioner's estate covered by buildings not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • City of St. Louis v. Brown
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1900
    ...(f) Liability of the city to Brown can not be affected by the length of time occupied by him in the erection of a new building. Bowles v. Boston, 136 Mass. 398; Lincoln v. Scranton, 162 Pa. St. 289; City Kansas v. Morris, 105 Mo. 510. (g) The cost of removing Brown's house has nothing to do......
  • Martin v. The City St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1897
    ...733; Cohen v. Railroad, 34 Kan. 158; Railroad v. Owen, 8 Kan. 409; Railroad v. McComb, 60 Me. 290; Gay v. Gardiner, 54 Me. 477; Boles v. Boston, 136 Mass. 398; Chandler Jamaica Pond Aqueduct, 125 Mass. 544; Kidder v. Oxford, 116 Mass. 165; Reed v. Railroad, 105 Mass. 303; Whitman v. Railroa......
  • Williams v. City Of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1906
    ...108 Mass. 60;Pinkham v. Chelmsford, 109 Mass. 225;Cobb v. Boston, 109 Mass. 438;Fairbanks v.Fitchburg, 110 Mass. 224;Boles v. Boston, 136 Mass. 398;Cushing v. Boston, 144 Mass. 317, 11 N. E. 93;Maynard v. Northampton, 157 Mass. 218, 31 N. E. 1062. 2. The first ruling requested was rightly r......
  • Williams v. City of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1906
    ... ... enactment of the act, and what was its value after. We see ... nothing in the cases cited by the defendant to the contrary ... Chase v. Worcester, 108 Mass. 60; Pinkham v ... Chelmsford, 109 Mass. 225; Cobb v. Boston, 109 ... Mass. 438; Fairbanks v. Fitchburg, 110 Mass. 224; Boles ... v. Boston, 136 Mass. 398; Cushing v. Boston, ... 144 Mass. 317, 11 N.E. 93; Maynard v. Northampton, ... 157 Mass. 218, 31 N.E. 1062 ...          2. The ... first ruling requested was rightly refused. The restrictions ... [190 Mass. 552] ... in St. 1896, p. 261, c. 313, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT