Hanley v. Cook
| Decision Date | 06 June 1923 |
| Citation | 245 Mass. 563,139 N.E. 654 |
| Parties | HANLEY et al. v. COOK et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; William Cushing Wait, Judge.
Bill in equity by Thomas F. Hanley and another against Frank L. Cook and others to enjoin defendants from erecting a public or community garage upon their premises under a permit alleged to be void. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Thomas P. O'Connor, of South Boston, for appellants.
Under St. 1913, c. 577, St. 1914, c. 119, after due notice and hearing, the defendant Cook on October 27, 1914, was granted a permit by the board of street commissioners of the city of Boston for the ‘erection and maintenance of an eight (8) car individual garage and gasoline station’ on the premises 1508-1510 Columbia Road. From October 27, 1914, until some time in April or May, 1922, the defendant Cook took no steps whatever to build the garage under the permit. Some time in April or May, 1922, he procured from the defendant Cundari a plan of two proposed garages. This plan he submitted to the board of street commissioners and received its approval thereof, indorsed on the plan in these words:
‘This plan approved by board May 25, 1922, for garages under permit granted October 27, 1914.’
May 29, 1922, Cook sold the property at 1508-1510 Columbia Road to the defendant Hoar, and transferred to him by assignment ‘a permit issued by the city of Boston for the erection and maintenance of an eight (8) car individual garage and a gasoline station on the above-described property.’ Hoar now holds the legal title to this property as trustee for the defendant ‘Columbus Associates,’ a voluntary association. The defendant Cundari placed a shanty on the premises on either June 7 or 8, 1922.
This bill was filed June 21, 1922, by Thomas F. Hanley and Richard Walsh. Hanley and the wife of Walsh, in 1914, when the permit was granted to Cook, were as they are now, owners of land abutting on the premises at No. 1508-1510 Columbia Road. Notice of the public hearing required to be given by Sts. 1913 and 1914, supra, was duly served upon them; and the owner Walsh was present at the hearing and objected to the granting of the permit. The record does not disclose any change in the character of the neighborhood between the time of the issuance of the permit and filing of the bill. Nor does it disclose an unsuccessful application to the board of street commissioners to revoke the permit, assuming, without decision, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higgins v. Bd. of License Comm'rs of Quincy
...a grant which attaches and thereafter runs with the land. Quinn v. Middlesex Electric Light Co., 140 Mass. 109, 3 N.E. 204;Hanley v. Cook, 245 Mass. 563, 139 N.E. 654;Marcus v. Street Commissioners, 252 Mass. 331, 147 N.E. 866;Simon v. Meyer, 261 Mass. 178, 158 N.E. 537;Weiss v. Mayor & Cit......
-
State ex rel. Gordon Memorial Hospital v. West Virginia State Bd. of Examiners for Registered Nurses
...without the consent of the licensing authority. 53 C.J.S., Licenses, §§ 45 and 86; 33 Am.Jur., Licenses, Section 6; Hanley v. Cook, 245 Mass. 563, 139 N.E. 654; Weiss v. Mayor and City of Woburn, 263 Mass. 30, 160 N.E. 444; Simon v. Meyer, 261 Mass. 178, 158 N.E. 537; State v. Bayne, 100 Wi......
-
City and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc.
...it is a personal privilege is not assignable, and it must be exercised * * * within a reasonable time after its issuance.' Hanley v. Cook, 245 Mass. 563, 139 N.E. 654. See Rhyne, Municipal Law, page There is another answer to the question of what derives from ownership. It has been tested i......
-
County of Cook v. Monat
...but which did not attach to or become an incident of the land where no garage had been built prior to the conveyance (Hanley v. Cook, 245 Mass. 563, 139 N.E. 654 (1923)). Defendants have objected to the County's and the lower court's reference to secondary authority that refutes their posit......