Fitchburg R. Co. v. Fitchburg

Decision Date23 October 1876
Citation121 Mass. 132
PartiesFitchburg Railroad Company v. City of Fitchburg
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Worcester. Tort for breaking and entering the plaintiff's close. Writ dated December 31, 1874. Trial in the Superior Court before Putnam, J., without a jury, who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The trespasses complained of were admitted by the defendant to have been done by its agent; and the title of the plaintiff to the land in question was also admitted.

On August 26, 1868, the following petition, signed by David Boutelle and nine others, was presented to the selectmen of Fitchburg: "To the honorable board of selectmen of Fitchburg. We, the subscribers, legal voters of Fitchburg would respectfully request that you would lay out and report to the town a street over the passway leading from Summer Street, opposite D. Boutelle's house, to the depots. In doing which the convenience of the public would be highly promoted."

On the same day the selectmen passed the following order: "On the petition aforesaid, ordered, that all persons interested therein be notified that the selectmen will meet at the Fitchburg Railroad Passenger Station in said Fitchburg, on Saturday the nineteenth day of September next, at one o'clock, P. M. And it is further ordered, that David Boutelle, one of the petitioners aforesaid, serve each person interested in real estate, over which said road is petitioned to pass, with notice of said meeting and order, seven days at least, before the said nineteenth of September, at which time and place the said selectmen will proceed to view the route set forth in said petition, to hear all persons interested therein, who may then and there desire to be heard thereon; and, if they shall adjudge the prayer of said petition ought to be granted, they will then proceed to lay out and locate a road over said route, agreeable to said petition. And the said David Boutelle is ordered to make return of said petition and order, with his doings thereon to one of the said selectmen, on or before the said day."

After the hearing mentioned in the order, the selectmen proceeded to lay out a town way, to be called Depot Court, and described and located it in the report of their doings to the town, on October 26, 1868. One C. L. Heywood, superintendent of the Fitchburg Railroad Company, acknowledged notice upon the back of said petition, on September 2, 1868, but there was no other evidence of any authority on his part so to do except his thus signing his name. There was no other evidence of notice...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Williams v. Monroe
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1894
    ...of the requirements, that of notice of the intended proceedings, would be the chief." Harris v. Marblehead, 10 Gray 40; Railroad v. Fitchburg, 121 Mass. 132; People ex rel. v. Kniskern, 54 N.Y. Skinner v. Lake View Ave. Co., 57 Ill. 151. Our conclusion is that in the absence of the notice r......
  • Horbach v. City of Omaha
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1898
    ... ... 229; ... Edmiston v. Edmiston, 2 Ohio 251; Fass v ... Seehawer, 60 Wis. 525, 19 N.W. 533; Grace v. Board ... of Health, 135 Mass. 490; Fitchburg R. Co. v. City ... of Fitchburg, 121 Mass. 132; Northampton v ... Abell, 127 Mass. 507; Hutchinson v. City of ... Omaha, 52 Neb. 345, 72 N.W ... ...
  • Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation v. City of Springfield
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1947
    ... ... the essential facts required by law or by contract, as the ... case may be. Fitchburg Railroad v. Fitchburg, 121 ... Mass. 132 ... Shea v. Lowell, 132 Mass. 187 ... Wilson v. Crooker, 145 Mass. 571 ... Carver v ... Taunton, 152 ... ...
  • Comm'r of Corps. & Taxation v. City of Springfield
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1947
    ...or obligations must state with reasonable certainty the essential facts required by law or by contract, as the case may be. Fitchburg R. v. Fitchburg, 121 Mass. 132.Shea v. Lowell, 132 Mass. 187.Wilson v. Crooker, 145 Mass. 571, 14 N.E. 798.Inhabitants of Carver v. City of Taunton, 152 Mass......
  • 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