Alden v. Springfield
| Decision Date | 27 September 1875 |
| Parties | Charles P. Alden v. City of Springfield |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Hampden. Petition to the Superior Court, under the St. of 1871, c. 382, § 7, for a jury to revise a betterment assessed by the city council of the city of Springfield on land of the petitioner, on account of the widening of North Main Street.
At the trial, before Allen J., the petitioner offered to prove that the principal purpose and effect of widening the street was to benefit the public generally, and not to confer a special benefit upon the abutters, and inquired of a witness "what was the proportion of benefit to the real estate of the abutters compared with that to real estate generally in said city." Upon objection by the respondent, the court did not permit the question to be put.
The petitioner contended from the records in the case that one item of the expense of widening the street was the cost of extending a culvert for the passage of a brook flowing through land of the petitioner, and across the street; that the culvert did not answer the purpose for which it was intended; and a witness was asked whether the extension of the culvert was of any benefit to the land assessed. The judge ruled that this question was inadmissible. The jury returned a verdict for the respondent; and the petitioner alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
H. Morris, for the petitioner.
A. L. Soule & M. P. Knowlton, for the respondent.
While the petitioner was entitled to introduce evidence tending to show that the assessment upon his land was too great, he was not entitled to inquire as to the proportion of the benefit to the lands of himself and the other abutters on the way, as compared with the benefit to real estate generally in the city; and such an inquiry might properly be excluded as tending to confuse the jury, and to divert their attention from the issue before them.
The question was as to the benefit to the petitioner's land by the whole construction of the street, and the petitioner had no right to introduce evidence as to the benefit resulting from any particular piece of work done in the course of such construction.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Twenty-Third Street Trafficway v. Crutcher
...of the improvement as a whole, and not on account of certain of its parts. In re Third, Fourth and Fifth Avenues, 49 Wash. 109; Alden v. Springfield, 121 Mass. 27; Lincoln v. Dore, 176 Mass. 210; City Bloomington v. Reeves, 177 Ill. 161, 168. (4) The court erred in giving to the jury instru......
-
Sears v. Board of St. Com'rs of Boston
... ... Commissioners, 176 Mass ... 210, 212, 57 N.E. 356. To a greater or less extent it is ... necessary and habitual to group them in this way. Alden ... v. City of Springfield, 121 Mass. 27, 28. The only thing ... to be considered is whether the attempt to do so is ... unjustifiable in the ... ...
-
In re Twenty-Third St. Traffic Way
...in rendering its verdict and judgment thereon entered accordingly by the trial court. To a like effect was the ruling in Alden v. City of Springfield, 121 Mass. 27, a proceeding to revise a special assessment because of a street opening, where the court "The question was as to the benefit t......
-
Lincoln v. Dore
... ... benefit small. Still 'the question was as to the benefit ... to the petitioner's land by the whole construction of the ... street.' Alden v. City of Springfield, 121 Mass ... 27, 28. The statute seems to contemplate the course which was ... adopted, so that strictly the question ... ...