Allen v. Com.

• Citation: 188 Mass. 59,74 N.E. 287
• Parties: ALLEN v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Decision Date: 17 May 1905
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

188 Mass. 59

74 N.E. 287

ALLEN v. COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

May 17, 1905

COUNSEL

John S. Lynch, for petitioner.

Ralph A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Fred T. Field, for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

MORTON J.

The question in this case is whether the petitioner owned 'an established business on land' within the meaning of St 1895, p. 573, c. 488, § 14. So much of the section as is material is as follows: 'In case any individual or firm owning on the first day of April in the year eighteen hundren and ninety five an established business on land in West Boylston, whether the same shall be taken or not under this act, * * * shall deem that such business is decreased in value by the carrying out of this act, whether by loss of custom or otherwise, and unable to agree with said board as to the amount of damages to be paid for such injury, such damages shall be determined,' etc. The petitioner owned on the 1st of April, 1895, and had owned for a good many years, a small farm in West Boylston, consisting, it is said of about 50 acres, which he carried on, and on which he lived and supported himself and family. He had no other business. He raised hay, grain, apples, and vegetables, but not in large quantities, and kept a cow, a horse, some hens, and a few hogs, and made each year a few barrels of cider from apples raised on the farm. The hay that was not consumed, and the eggs, vegetables, cider, and milk that were not required for the support of the family, were sold in the village of Oakdale, in West Boylston; and he occasionally sold a hog to the local butcher. He had no regular route or customers for the sale of the hay, eggs, vegetables, milk, and cider. It does not appear, and is perhaps not material, of how many persons his family consisted, nor how much hay and other produce or how many eggs and hogs he sold. The village of Oakdale was destroyed by the construction of the reservoir, and the petitioner brings this petition to recover the damages thereby caused to his business.

The act under which the petition is brought is entitled 'An act to provide for a metropolitan water supply,' and provides for the construction of a reservoir, the effect of which will be to submerge certain towns and villages, and to destroy a large amount of property, and to interfere very seriously with, if not destroy, in many cases, business. Ordinarily, the damage done to a person's business by the exercise of the right of eminent domain is not a matter for which he is entitled to compensation. But in the present case the Legislature has shown a disposition to deal liberally with those who would or might be injured by the carrying out of the act. In addition to providing compensation for real estate taken, and for real estate not taken, but directly or indirectly decreased in value, the act provides that in certain cases individuals and firms shall be compensated for damage done to their business, whether the land on which it is established is taken or not, and whether the business is decreased in value by loss of custom or otherwise. By subsequent acts these provisions were extended to the towns of Sterling, Boylston, and the part of Clinton within the limits of the reservoir. St. 1897, p. 429, c. 445; St. 1898, p. 666, c. 551; St. 1901, p. 451, c. 505. By another act the Legislature went so far as to provide that in certain cases the employés of corporations, partnerships, and individuals in West Boylston should be entitled to compensation when thrown out of work by the taking of the property of their employers under the act, St. 1896, p. 444, c. 450. The purpose of the Legislature to deal liberally with those affected by the construction of the reservoir is thus shown, and the provisions now before us should be construed in accordance with the intention thus manifested. The word 'business' is of large significance, and 'denotes the employment or occupation in which a person is engaged to procure a living.' Goddard v. Chaffee, 2 Allen, 395, 79 Am. Dec. 796. That farming is a business is plain ( Snow v. Sheldon, 126 Mass. 332, 30 Am. Rep. 684), and there is nothing in the statute that excludes it any more than any other business from its operation. It is manifest, also, we think, that the petitioner was engaged in the business of farming. That was the means, and, so far as appears, the only...