Jane F. Woodward &Amp; Others v. City of Worcester
| Decision Date | 04 November 1876 |
| Citation | 121 Mass. 245 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jane F. Woodward & others v. City of Worcester |
Worcester. Bill in equity to restrain the defendant from turning the sewage matter of a part of the Mill Brook sewer in Worcester, upon the plaintiffs' land, and for damages and for further relief. Hearing upon the bill, answer replication, and a report of a master, before Devens, J., who reserved the case for the consideration of the full court. The facts appear in the opinion.
Decree for the plaintiffs.
G. F. Hoar & T. L. Nelson, for the plaintiffs.
F. T. Blackmer, for the defendant.
OPINION
The city of Worcester, for the purposes of sewerage, has the right by the St. of 1867, c. 106, to fix the boundaries of certain brooks, among which is Mill Brook, and may "alter, change, widen, straighten and deepen the channels of said brooks, and remove obstructions therefrom, and may use and appropriate said brooks, cover them, pave and enclose them in retaining walls, so far as they shall adjudge necessary for purposes of sewerage, drainage and the public health."
The precise question submitted for our determination is quite simple. The course of Mill Brook southerly from Green Street till it crossed Cambridge Street was very circuitous. From Front Street southerly to Green Street, the defendant had appropriated the bed of Mill Brook as a sewer, under an adjudication of the city council that it was necessary to fix the boundaries thereof, to straighten and deepen the channel, and to inclose the same in retaining walls, and to appropriate, establish and lay out the same as a main drain and common sewer. By authority of the city council, the boundaries of the brook thus located were fixed with great definiteness and accuracy. Subsequently, in June, 1869, the city council adjudicated that it was necessary, for the purposes of sewerage, drainage and the public health, that the location of Mill Brook between Green Street and Cambridge Street be changed from its then circuitous location, and that it be located along and parallel with Millbury Street, between the said Green and Cambridge streets, and that the new channel be excavated, deepened, widened and straightened, and that the same be paved, walled and inclosed by an arch or retaining walls, at such time thereafter as the city council may adjudge it fit, and that the same be now appropriated, established and laid out, to be hereafter constructed and maintained as a main drain and common sewer. Thereupon the city council proceeded to define the boundaries of said Mill Brook, and to fix and establish the same with great precision, in the new location between said Green and Cambridge streets, thus making a continuous and nearly straight sewer from Front Street across Green Street to Cambridge Street. The defendant then constructed the main sewer from Front Street to Cambridge Street. In doing this, however, it caused an opening to be made in the main drain at or near Green Street, and, by artificial means, caused a portion of the contents of the sewer to follow what had previously been the channel of Mill Brook, while the remaining portion continued its way through the sewer as newly constructed to Cambridge Street. This is the alleged wrong for which remedy is sought by the plaintiff's bill.
The defendant claims the right, at least while its system of sewerage is in process, both to use the former bed of Mill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Allouez Mining Co.
...Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 80 U.S. 166, 13 Wall. 166; Arimond v. Green Bay Co., 31 Wis. 316; Rowe v. Portsmouth, 56 N.H. 291; Woodward v. Worcester, 121 Mass. 245. It follows is beyond question that complainant sustains a legal injury for which he is entitled to suitable redress. The only q......
-
Edmondson v. The City of Moberly
...Portland, 67 Mo. 46; Stetson v. Faxon, 19 Pick. 147; Bragton v. Rives, 113 Mass. 218; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 208; Woodward v. Worcester, 121 Mass. 245; Mill v. Cambridge, 117 Mass. 396; Morse v. of Worcester, 9 A. & E. Cor. Cas. 642; Kiley v. City of Kansas, 87 Mo. 103; Seibert v......
-
Price v. Oakfield Highland Creamery Co.
...drain filthy and polluted water upon the land of A., taken from a natural stream which had been polluted. To the same effect: Woodward v. Worcester, 121 Mass. 245;Harris v. Mackintosh, 133 Mass. 228;Rodenhausen v. Craven, 141 Pa. St. 546, 21 Atl. 774; Lockwood v. Lawrence, 77 Me. 297; Savil......
-
Morse v. Worcester
...139 Mass. 389 2 N.E. 694 Charles D. Morse v. City of Worcester[1] Supreme Judicial Court of ... rights of others. If it is practicable to use any methods of ... other part of the brook. Woodward v ... Worcester, 121 Mass. 245. There are no allegations ... ...