Sheldon v. Boston & A.R. Co.

Decision Date21 November 1898
PartiesSHELDON v. BOSTON & A.R. CO. SHELDON et al. v. SAME.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

F.M. Forbush, for petitioners.

P.H Cooney and H.C. Mulligan, for respondent.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The respondent took land, under St.1890, c. 428, and St.1891, c 123, for the purpose of changing its grade at a crossing, in accordance with the report of commissioners appointed under the provisions of the statutes. It excavated the land along the line of the new location to the depth of about 15 feet below the level of its former roadbed, and thereby permanently drained the wells of the petitioners on their lands, a short distance away from the land taken, and separated from it by the land of other persons. These petitions are brought by the petitioners, respectively, to recover damages for the loss of their respective wells, and no other damage is claimed. Damages in such cases are to be assessed "in the same manner, and under like rules of law as damages may be determined when occasioned by the taking of land for locating and laying out railroads and public ways, respectively, in such city or town." St.1890, c. 428, § 5; St.1891, c. 123, § 1. If any part of the land of the petitioners had been taken, there is no doubt, upon all the authorities, that in assessing their damages an allowance would have been made for the draining of their wells upon the land that remained. First Church in Boston v. City of Boston, 14 Gray, 214; Geraghty v. City of Boston, 120 Mass. 416; Murphy v. City of Boston, Id. 419; Brady v. City of Fall River, 121 Mass. 262-264; Lane v. City of Boston, 125 Mass. 519; Sisson v. City of New Bedford, 137 Mass. 255. There are many cases in which the statute giving damages occasioned by the taking of land for railroads has been discussed, and in which it has been said that the right of one who has suffered special and peculiar damages to his property, occasioned by the taking of land for a railroad, to recover damages for his injury, does not depend upon the question whether any part of his land is taken. Dodge v. Commissioners, 3 Metc. (Mass.) 380; Ashby v. Railroad Co., 5 Metc. (Mass.) 368; Parker v. Railroad Co., 3 Cush. 107; Babcock v Western R. Corp., 9 Metc. (Mass.) 553, 555; Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. Nashua & L.R Corp., 10 Cush. 385; Curtis v. Railroad Co., 14 Allen, 55. Parker v. Railroad Co., supra, was almost identical with the case at bar, except that the land was taken for the construction of a new railroad, instead of for the alteration of an old one. It was held that the petitioner, no part of whose land was taken, might recover damages for the draining of his well. In Trowbridge v. Brookline, 144 Mass. 139, 10 N.E. 796, it was held, after full consideration and a citation of the authorities, that one might recover damages to his land caused by the construction of a sewer, although no part of the land was taken or entered upon. In Dana v. City of Boston, 170 Mass. 593, 49 N.E. 1013,--the latest case considered by this court,--the petitioners, no part of whose land abutted upon the highway, were allowed to recover damages to their property from the changing of the grade in making specific repairs upon a highway. The language of the statutes under which these decisions were made, as construed by the court, seems to show a purpose on the part of the legislature, when land is taken for the construction of a railroad, a highway, or a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Hite v. Hite
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 25 Octubre 1938
    ...shares, and the mode of asserting and establishing their rights to be determined by G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 190. Sheldon v. Boston & Albany Railroad Co., 172 Mass. 180, 51 N.E. 1078,Sheehan v. Fall River, 187 Mass. 356, 73 N.E. 544. She is not entitled to take all the realty because the value of t......
  • Pierce, Case of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 1950
    ...be entitled to any compensation or benefits other than those provided for in the workmen's compensation act. Sheldon v. Boston & Albany Railroad Co., 172 Mass. 180, 51 N.E. 1078; Tillson v. City of Springfield, 258 Mass. 72, 154 N.E. 561; Ketcham v. Board of Education of Community Consolida......
  • Pierce, Case of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 1950
    ... ... Development Co. v. Gray, 315 Mass. 127, 128-129, 51 ... N.E.2d 960, 961; Scaccia v. Boston Elevated Railway ... Co., 317 Mass. 245, 57 N.E.2d 761 ...        The workmen's ... other than those provided for in the workmen's ... compensation act. Sheldon v. Boston & Albany Railroad ... Co., 172 Mass. 180, 51 N.E. 1078; Tillson v. City of ... ...
  • Hite v. Hite
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 25 Octubre 1938
    ... ... Arruda v. Director General of Railroads, 251 Mass ... 255 ... Morse v. Boston, 253 Mass. 247 ... Besides, ... there is nothing contained in G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 199 which ... by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 190. Sheldon v. Boston & Albany ... Railroad, 172 Mass. 180 ... Sheehan v. Fall River, 187 ... Mass. 356 ... She ... ...
  • 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