Lajoie v. City of Lowell
| Citation | 100 N.E. 1070,214 Mass. 8 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1913 |
| Parties | LAJOIE v. CITY OF LOWELL. SAME v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. R. CO. |
Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County.
Petition by Charles Lajoie against the City of Lowell for the assessment of damages for the taking of land and injury to remaining land under proceedings for the abolition of a grade crossing, and action in trespass by him against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad for damages caused by changes made in abolishing the grade crossing. The trial court directed two verdicts based on different theories, and reported the causes to the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment for petitioner.
In 1872 the Framingham & Lowell R. R. owned a right of way in the city of Lowell near Leather (now Lincoln) street, four rods wide, running in a general direction northeast and southwest. Under the general statutes it had power to locate and condemn a strip of land not greater than five rods in width, and power to acquire land outside such location by obtaining consent of the county commissioners. In 1872 it filed a location, the southeasterly line of which corresponded exactly with the southeasterly line of the previous right of way, but greater than five rods in width. The location was in all respects regular, and filed in the prescribed manner to give the railroad company title to a location five rods in width. The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. has since acquired all land of the Framing ham & Lowell Railroad.
If the location filed by the railroad in 1872 was effective to give the railroad a strip five rods in width, the title to the said strip one rod in width is now in the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. In 1910 in abolishing the grade crossing at Lincoln St., four square feet of land belonging to the petitioner were taken and 31 square feet of the strip to which both the railroad and the petitioner claim title were used. The petition against the city of Lowell is for the taking of the four square feet above mentioned.
At the trial in the Superior Court the court directed two verdicts in the case against the city, one based upon the theory that the 1872 location was invalid, and one upon the theory that it was valid for a width of five rods. Under the first the jury found for petitioner for $866.40; under the second for $551.50. In the action of trespass against the railroad company under the first theory the verdict was for plaintiff for $103.30. If the second theory was right a verdict was to be for defendant.Henry V. Charbonneau, of Lowell, for petitioner.
John L. Hall and Stuart C. Rand, both of Boston,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Providence v. Energy Facilities
... ... See City Council of Agawam v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 437 Mass. 821, 828, 776 N.E.2d 1002 (2002), ... 11 See Devine v. Nantucket, 449 Mass. 499, 506, 870 N.E.2d 591 (2007), citing Lajoie v. Lowell, 214 Mass. 8, 9, 100 N.E. 1070 (1913). See also A.L. Eno & W.V. Hovey, Real Estate Law ... ...
-
Devine v. Town of Nantucket
... ... public use under eminent domain is an exercise of one of the highest powers of government." Lajoie v. Lowell, 214 Mass. 8, 9, 100 N.E. 1070 (1913) (taking void where railroad obtained determination ... Newton, 178 Mass. 276, 282, 59 N.E. 648 (1901). See Schroeder v. City of N.Y., 371 U.S. 208, 211-212, 83 S.Ct. 279, 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962); Walker v. Hutchinson, 352 ... ...
- Abuzahra v. City of Cambridge
- Lichoulas v. City of Lowell