Brink v. Summers
| Citation | 352 Mass. 786,227 N.E.2d 476 |
| Parties | Frances W. BRINK v. Lenora C. SUMMERS. |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1967 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
James D. St. Clair, Wellesley Hills, for defendant.
John H. Fletcher Calver, Boston, for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER and REARDON, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The plaintiff brought this bill to compel the removal of a portion of the defendant's residence, which extends over a boundary line onto vacant land owned by the plaintiff and which was constructed following a mistake made by a surveyor employed by the defendant. The bill was taken pro confesso against a former defendant bank which holds a mortgage on the defendant's property. A. Land Court plan delineating the boundaries of the adjacent lots of the parties had been of record for many years prior to the employment of the surveyor. The judge found that the defendant's dwelling, which had a width at that point of twenty feet, extended onto the plaintiff's land for seventeen and a half feet, and found also that the 'building ordinances of the Town of Falmouth (where the building was located) require a set-back of ten feet from property lines.' A final decree ordered the defendant to 'remove * * * her building at least ten feet from * * * (the plaintiff's) boundary line.' There was no error. Notwithstanding the innocent mistake and the resultant expense to the defendant, on these facts the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring the removal of the building unlawfully placed upon her land without regard to the amount of her damage, the cost of removal, or the defendant's good faith. Ferrone v. Rossi, 311 Mass. 591, 593, 42 N.E.2d 564; Blood v. Cohen, 330 Mass. 385, 387, 113 N.E.2d 448; Sheppard Envelope Co. v. Arcade Malleable Iron Co., 335 Mass. 180, 188--189, 138 N.E.2d 777. A review of the evidence demonstrates, as the judge found, no laches on the part of the plaintiff.
Decree affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Archambault
...Iron Co., 335 Mass. 180, 187--189, 138 N.E.2d 777. Ottavia v. Savarese, 338 Mass. 330, 336--337, 155 N.E.2d 432. Brink v. Summers, 352 Mass. 786, 227 N.E.2d 476. In rare cases, referred to in our decisions as 'exceptional' (see the Ottavia case, supra, 338 Mass. at 336, 155 N.E.2d at 436), ......
-
Mastandrea v. Baressi
...311 Mass. 591, 595--596, 42 N.E.2d 564 (1942); Ottavia v. Savarese, 338 Mass. 330, 335--337, 155 N.E.2d 432 (1959); Brink v. Summers, 352 Mass. 786, 227 N.E.2d 476 (1967). 3. In the admission of evidence there was no error which 'injuriously affected the substantial rights of the (defendant......
- Dumais v. Laino
-
More Property Rules Than Property? the Right to Exclude in Patent and Copyright
...many states have adopted this approach, it is not universal; Massachusetts remains a prominent exception. See, e.g., Brink v. Summers, 227 N.E.2d 476, 477 (Mass. 1967); Beaudoin v. Sinodinos, 48 N.E.2d 19, 24 (Mass. 1943).73. See Mannillo v. Gorski, 255 A.2d 258, 264 (N.J. 1969) (observing ......