Kohlhepp v. Inhabitants of West Roxbury
Decision Date | 08 September 1876 |
Parties | Eliza Kohlhepp v. Inhabitants of West Roxbury |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
[Syllabus Material]
Norfolk. Tort for breaking and entering the plaintiff's close, digging a ditch through it, and turning the water of Stony Brook through the same.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., it was admitted that the acts which constituted the alleged trespass were done bye certain commissioners appointed by the town of West Roxbury to improve Stony Brook and its tributaries for the purposes of sewerage, under the provisions of the Sts. of 1868, c. 223, and 1870, c. 220, after the filing by the commissioners, in the registry of deeds for the county of Norfolk, the paper and plan or plans hereinafter mentioned. It appeared that the close was the property of the plaintiff and that her husband, Frederick Kohlhepp, owned a tract adjoining, the whole, upon the plan mentioned, being marked as belonging to him. The defendant, in justification of the alleged trespass, contended that the close had been taken by the town for widening Stony Brook, under the acts above mentioned, and put in evidence the following paper, which was recorded on January 12, 1871, in the registry of deeds for Norfolk County:
The defendant also produced a roll of ten plans, numbered 1 to 10 respectively. On the face of the plan No. 1 were the words. On the face of each plan were the words, " October 1st, 1870, scale 20 ft. T. B. Moses, Surveyor.' Received and filed January 12, 1871. J. Foord, Register." On the back of plan No. 2 was the following indorsement, in the handwriting of the register of deeds for said county: "190, town of West Roxbury, lands taken to widen Stony Brook, 10 plans."
It was agreed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barnes v. Peck
...of this taking might have been more precise in some particulars, the finding cannot be pronounced erroneous. Kohlhepp v. Inhabitants of West Roxbury, 120 Mass. 596, 599;Burnett v. Commonwealth, 169 Mass. 417, 425, 48 N. E. 758. All the waters of the river and its tributaries at a stated poi......
-
Corey v. Chicago, Burlington and Kansas City Railway Co.
... ... be identified from what is made to appear. Kohlhepp v ... Roxbury, 120 Mass. 596. Reference to an attached map or ... ...
-
Riche v. Bar Harbor Water Co.
...& P. R. R. Co. v. Co. Com. 65 Me. 292; Hazen v. B. & M. R. R. Co. 2 Gray 574; Pinkerton v. B. & A. R. R. Co. 109 Mass. 527; Kohlhepp v. W. Roxbury, 120 Mass. 596; Lund v. New Bedford, 121 Mass. 286; Drury v. R. Co. 127 Mass. 571. Counsel further ably argued other questions presented by the ......
-
Barnes v. Peck
...description of this taking might have been more precise in some particulars, the finding cannot be pronounced erroneous. Kohlhepp v. West Roxbury, 120 Mass. 596 , 599. Burnett v. Commonwealth, 169 Mass. 417 , 425. the waters of the river and its tributaries at a stated point were taken. The......