City of Somerville v. Dickerman

Decision Date29 July 1879
Citation127 Mass. 272
PartiesCity of Somerville v. George H. Dickerman
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Middlesex. Contract upon an award of arbitrators appointed under an agreement of submission to arbitration, under seal entered into by the plaintiff, as the party of the first part, and the defendant and others, as the parties of the second part, on June 3, 1872, and containing the following "Whereas, a certain street or town-way, known as Highland Avenue, has been duly laid out and established in said Somerville, extending from Central Street to Elm Street now, therefore, the parties whose land has been taken for the laying out of said street do hereby mutually covenant and agree to refer and submit to three arbitrators, to be appointed as hereinafter stated, the following matter, namely: To ascertain, determine and estimate the amount of damage sustained by the said parties of the second part severally in their property, by the laying out and construction of said street and taking of their land therefor (the said parties of the second part hereby severally releasing to said city the land so taken for the construction or laying out of said street), from Central to Elm Streets, as aforesaid, and likewise to ascertain, adjudge and determine the value of the benefit and advantage received by any real estate of the said parties of the second part therefrom, beyond the general advantage to all real estate in the said city of Somerville, and to assess or award to be paid a proportional share accordingly of the expense of laying out and constructing said street as aforesaid, upon said parties of the second part; provided, however, that such assessment upon said parties shall not exceed one half the amount of such adjudged benefit and advantage, and the award of said arbitrators, or a majority of them, shall be final." Then followed a provision in regard to the appointment of the arbitrators, and their mode of procedure.

At the trial in this court, before Ames, J., without a jury, it appeared that on November 2, 1869, Somerville, which was then a town, accepted the betterment laws then in force, namely, the Sts. of 1866, c. 174; 1868, c. 276; 1869, c. 169.

In 1871, the selectmen of the town altered and widened the existing portion of Highland Avenue, lying between Medford Street and its termination at Central Street, by the addition of ten feet on each side, making the same sixty feet wide; and, at the same time, and by the same act, laid out and extended the avenue sixty feet wide from Central Street to Elm Street.

At a town meeting held on April 27, 1871, in pursuance of an article in the warrant, "to see if the town will accept and approve the laying out, the alteration, widening and extension of Highland Avenue, on the report of the selectmen," the town accepted and approved such alteration, widening, extension, and laying out of Highland Avenue. In the report of the selectmen, no reference was made to the betterment law, and they awarded damages to only two persons whose lands were taken. After the acceptance by the town of the report of the selectmen, and at the same meeting, the town passed the following vote: "Voted, that the selectmen be instructed to assess the expense of the extension and alteration of Highland Avenue upon the abutters, under the provisions of the betterment law of the Commonwealth." But no assessment has been made, and no proceedings have been had by, in behalf of, or against, any of the abutters, on account of the widening or extension of Highland Avenue, except as herein stated.

At the time of the execution of the submission to arbitration, the new portion of the avenue, from Central Street to Elm...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Attorney Gen. ex rel. Nesmith v. City of Lowell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1923
    ...in numerous decisions dealing with a great diversity of transactions by cities and towns. Spaulding v. Lowell, 23 Pick. 71;Somerville v. Dickerman, 127 Mass. 272;Greenough v. Wakefield, 127 Mass. 275;Wheelock v. Lowell, 196 Mass. 220, 223, 81 N. E. 977,124 Am. St. Rep. 543,12 Ann. Cas. 1109......
  • City of Asheville v. Herbert
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1925
    ...519. All acts beyond the scope of the powers granted to a municipality are void. Dillon on Municipal Corporations, supra; Somerville v. Dickerman, 127 Mass. 272; College v. Boston, 104 Mass. 470; State v. Passaic, 41 N. J. Law, 90; Heiskell v. Baltimore, 65 Md. 125, 4 A. 116, 57 Am. Rep. 30......
  • Larsen v. Salt Lake City
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • May 1, 1914
    ... ... (Dillon on Mun ... Corp. Sec. 89 and 55; Cooke v. McCrea, 93 Ill. 236; ... McCann v. Auto Co., 9 Neb. 324; Summerville v ... Dickerman, 127 Mass. 272; Bryan v. Page, 51 ... Tex. 532; Butler v. Nevin, 88 Ill. 575.) ... H. J ... Dininny, Aaron Meyers and W. H. Folland for ... ...
  • Wallace v. City Of Richmond
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 11, 1897
    ...of Corpus Christi, 50 Tex. 614, 629; Russell v. Mayor, etc., 2 Denio, 461; City of Ft. Worth v. Crawford, 64 Tex. 202; City of Somerville v. Dickerman, 127 Mass. 272; City of Eufaula v. McNab, 67 Ala. 590; McDonald v. City of Redwing, 13 Minn. 38, 39 (Gil. 25); Dunbar v. Alcalde, etc., 1 Ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT