Berry v. City of Quincy
| Decision Date | 07 May 1956 |
| Citation | 334 Mass. 703,134 N.E.2d 135 |
| Parties | Henry G. BERRY et al. v. CITY OF QUINCY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Ralph W. Sullivan, Boston (James M. Malloy, Boston, with him), for plaintiff.
John P. Flavin, Quincy, for defendant Strout.
Douglas A. Randall, Asst. City Sol., Quincy, for City of Quincy.
Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, WILKINS, COUNIHAN and WHITTEMORE, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
This is a bill for a declaratory decree under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 231A, §§ 1 and 2, inserted by St.1945, c. 582, § 1. It comes here upon an appeal from a final decree dismissing the bill after interlocutory decrees sustaining demurrers. The material allegations of the bill are that the four plaintiffs are citizens and taxpayers of Quincy and that they bring this bill in their own behalf and in behalf of others similarly interested. They allege that the defendant Strout is the holder of a permit to operate a motel on Hancock Street, Quincy, issued by the defendant health commissioner of Quincy. They further allege that this permit was illegally issued, that the motel will be detrimental to the public good, and that it will result in private damage to them as owners of property in the immediate neighborhood. The question raised by each of the demurrers is whether the bill discloses the existence of an actual controversy within the meaning of c. 231A, § 1. We are of opinion that it does not. This case, it seems to us, is controlled by what was said in Povey v. School Committee of Medford, 333 Mass. ----, 127 N.E.2d 925, 927, 'We cannot believe that the Legislature intended that public officers should be subject to harassment by taxpayers as to their official acts in this manner.' See School Committee of Cambridge v. Superintendent of Schools of Cambridge, 320 Mass. 516, 70 N.E.2d 298; Kaplan v. Bowker, 333 Mass. ----, 131 N.E.2d 372.
Interlocutory and final decrees affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cabot v. Assessors of Boston
...under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 40, § 53. See Povey v. School Committee of Medford, 333 Mass. 70, 71-72, 127 N.E.2d 925; Berry v. City of Quincy, 334 Mass. ----, 134 N.E.2d 135. Any declaratory relief granted under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 231A, § 6, in this proceeding is not a matter of right and is whol......
-
Bettigole v. Assessors of Springfield
...affected by proposed governmental action. Cf. Povey v. School Comm. of Medford, 333 Mass. 70, 71-72, 127 N.E.2d 925; Berry v. Quincy, 334 Mass. 703, 134 N.E.2d 135; Cabot v. Assessors of Boston, 335 Mass. 53, 57-58, 138 N.E.2d 618. We hold that declaratory relief is The Bettigole case also ......
-
Jacobson v. Parks and Recreation Commission of Boston
...of Peabody, 248 Mass. 165, 169, 143 N.E. 39, Povey v. School Comm. of Medford, 333 Mass. 70, 71-72, 127 N.E.2d 925, Berry v. Quincy, 334 Mass. 703, 134 N.E.2d 135, and Cabot v. Assessors of Boston, 335 Mass. 53, 57, 138 N.E.2d 618. See, as to G.L. c. 231A, Burnes v. Metropolitan Dist. Comm.......
-
Woods v. City of Newton
...of Medford, 333 Mass. 70, 71-72, 127 N.E.2d 925 * * *.' The defendants contend that the Povey case (followed in Berry v. City of Quincy, 334 Mass. 703, 134 N.E.2d 135) is determinative and requires the holding that the plaintiffs are without standing and that there is no controversy. The Po......