McAuliffe & Burke Co. v. Boston Housing Authority

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: Before QUA; RONAN
• Citation: McAuliffe & Burke Co. v. Boston Housing Authority, 133 N.E.2d 493, 334 Mass. 28 (Mass. 1956)
• Decision Date: 02 April 1956
• Parties: McAULIFFE & BURKE CO. v. BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY.

Page 493

133 N.E.2d 493

334 Mass. 28

McAULIFFE & BURKE CO. v. BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Dec. 27, 1955.

Decided April 2, 1956.

R. Gaynor Wellings, Boston, for plaintiff.

Lewis H. Weinstein, Boston, for Boston Housing Authority.

William L. Baxter, Corp. Counsel, Boston, for City of Boston.

Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, SPALDING, WILLIAMS and COUNIHAN, JJ.

RONAN, Justice.

This is a bill in equity, as amended, for a declaratory decree brought by the owner of a parcel of land located within an area known as the New York Streets Project and taken by the Boston Housing Authority as a decadent area for the purpose of its redevelopment. The bill is also brought against the city of Boston. The defendants have appealed from an interlocutory decree overruling their demurrer. The suit was submitted in the Superior Court upon a statement of agreed facts and was reported without decision to this court.

The plaintiff had its principal place of business at 19-29 Troy Street which premises consisted of the land and three buildings occupied by it in conducting its business of selling plumbing and heating supplies.

The Boston Housing Authority (hereinafter called the authority), purporting to act under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 121, especially under §§ 26J, 26P, and 26JJ-26MM, as appearing in St.1946, c. 574, § 1, as amended, has declared and found that a certain area in which the plaintiff's premises are situated was a substandard and decadent area and has undertaken a project for the assembly and redevelopment of said area under 'The Land Assembly and Redevelopment Plan 'New York Streets' Project.' The authority also made its 'Declaration of Findings Relative to the New York Streets Land Assembly and Redevelopment Project.' Copies of the plan and of the declaration were included in the statement of agreed facts. The findings of the authority set forth in the declaration amply support its conclusion that the project area was a substandard and decadent area as defined in G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 121, § 26J, of the housing authority law. The area was predominantly occupied by dwellings which, by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitation, and lack of repairs, were unfit for human habitation. The declaration then contained divers details readily tending to lead one to the conclusion that the authority reached.

The plan describes the project area as bounded by Dover Street on the south, Washington Street on the west, the retaining wall of a railroad on the north, and Albany Street on the east. There are then carved out of this description seven parcels, all located by metes and bounds and all abutting on one of the peripheral street boundaries just mentioned except in the case of one lot containing only 7,120 square feet and abutting upon an interior street contained within the area as generally described. This last mentioned lot is the only parcel which cannot be reached except by going over land actually taken. There is no uncertainty as to the exact location and size of area condemned. The description of the land is not ambiguous. None of the seven parcels has been taken or intended to be taken by the authority.

The first contention of the plaintiff is that the authority was empowered to take all the land within the peripheral boundaries of the area or nothing. Each of these seven parcels was especially described by metes and bounds together with its total area. All but one of them abutted upon one of the existing streets now forming one of the external boundaries of the project. The authority has in fact all the land located within the peripheral boundaries of the area except these parcels. The plaintiff contends that a taking of less than the entire plot declared to be substandard or decadent is invalid.

The defendants contend that the plaintiff has no standing to raise this point. The extent and the necessity for a taking rest in the sound discretion of the board to which the subject has been entrusted, Talbot v. Hudson, 16 Gray 417; Lynch v. Forbes, 161 Mass. 302, 37 N.E. 437; Boston v. Talbot, 206 Mass. 82, 91 N.E. 1014, although the purpose for which the land was taken is a question of law and is open to judicial review. Salisbury Land & Improvement Co. v. Commonwealth, 215 Mass. 371, 102 N.E. 619, 46 L.R.A., N.S., 1196; Allydonn Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Housing Authority, 304 Mass. 288, 23 N.E.2d 665.

The exercise of eminent domain is one of the highest attributes of sovereignty, and where the power is granted by statute to an administrative body there must be a compliance with the statute to effect a valid exercise of the power. Lajoie v. City of Lowell, 214 Mass. 8, 100 N.E. 1070; Byfield v. City of Newton, 247 Mass. 46, 141 N.E. 658; Watertown v. Dana, 255 Mass. 67, 150 N.E. 860, 44 A.L.R. 1374; Walker v. City of Medford, 272 Mass. 161, 172 N.E. 248; Malinoski v. D. S. McGrath, Inc., 283 Mass. 1, 186 N.E. 225; Inhabitants of Town of Holliston v. Holliston Water Co., 306 Mass. 17, 27 N.E.2d 194. A landowner whose property has purportedly been taken has the right to attack the validity of the taking by showing that certain essential steps prescribed by the statute have been omitted or have been performed in a manner contrary to or different from that required by the statute. We think the plaintiff whose land has been taken may challenge the validity of the taking. N. Ward Co. v. Street Com'rs of City of Boston, 217 Mass. 381, 104 N.E. 965; Lajoie v. City of Lowell, 214 Mass. 8, 100 N.E. 1070; Brown v. Inhabitants of Peabody, 228 Mass. 52, 116 N.E. 958; Breckwood Real Estate Co. v. City of Springfield, 258 Mass. 111, 154 N.E. 552; Radway v. Selectmen of Dennis, 266 Mass. 329, 165 N.E. 410; Suburban Land Co., Inc., v. Town of Billerica, 314 Mass. 184, 49 N.E.2d 1012, 147 A.L.R. 660.

The plaintiff points out that the project and plan used in the instant case did not deal with the entire area as determined by the authority but dealt with only a part of the area and was therefore inconsistent with the definition of a project and plan as set forth in G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 121, § 26J, as amended by St.1953, c. 647, §§ 13, 14, which speaks in terms of an area and not as to portions of a decadent, substandard or...