Parks v. County of Hampden

Decision Date27 June 1876
Citation120 Mass. 395
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesElisha P. Parks & others v. County of Hampden

Hampden. Petition to the county commissioners for a jury to assess damages for the taking of land by the respondent to widen North Elm Street in Westfield.

At the trial, before a sheriff's jury, the respondent, by way of set-off to the petitioners' claim for damages, offered to prove that the remaining land and premises of the petitioners had been benefited by the widening of the street, by giving a broader and handsomer avenue in front of them, and by making them more convenient. The respondent's counsel also asked certain witnesses, whose adequate knowledge was not questioned, "What in their judgment was the damage to the several petitioners, after setting off any benefits occasioned by widening of the street." The respondent admitting that it did not except to show any benefits, except such as accrued to them in common with other abutters resident on the same street, the presiding officer ruled that the respondent could not put in evidence of benefits of a general character common to all the lands upon the street but that it might introduce any evidence of direct or special benefits peculiar to the lands in question, and, after instructing the jury that benefits could be set off against damages as provided by statute, instructed them as follows "No benefit to the petitioners is to be set off against damages, except such benefit to an estate of the petitions as is not a general benefit acquired by the estates generally on the street widened; the benefit arising from said widening or otherwise, must be some direct benefit to the estate of the petitioners, over and above the general benefit to the estates located on said streets; otherwise, no set-off can be made against damages." The jury returned a verdict for the petitioners.

In the Superior Court the verdict was accepted; and the respondent appealed to this court.

Verdict accepted.

G. M Stearns & H. Fuller, for the petitioners.

E. B Gillett & H. B. Stevens, for the respondent.

Endicott, J. Ames & Devens, JJ., absent.

OPINION
Endicott

The respondent offered to prove that the estates of the petitioners had been benefited by the widening; but admitted that it did not expect to show any benefits except such as accrued to them in common with other abutters on the same street. The sheriff ruled that the respondent might introduce...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Faulkner v. City of Nashville
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1926
    ... ... July 3, 1926 ...          Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Davidson County; A. B. Neil, Judge ...          Condemnation ... proceeding by the City of Nashville ... widening streets or parts of streets, or laying out new ... streets, avenues, squares, parks, promenades, viaducts and ... tunnels, or for the building of sewers, conduits, gas works, ... [285 S.W. 45.] ... were common to all the lands in the vicinity. Parks v ... Hampden, 120 Mass. 395; Cross v. Plymouth, 125 ... Mass. 557 ...          In ... Rives v ... ...
  • Abbott v. Inhabitants of Cottage City
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1887
    ...street, or in the same neighborhood. Meacham v. Fitchburg R. Co., 4 Cush. 292; Cross v. County of Plymouth, 125 Mass. 557; Parks v. County of Hampden, 120 Mass. 395; v. South Reading B.R. Co., 8 Cush. 600. See Whitman v. Boston & M.R.R., 7 Allen, 323-327; Allen v. Charlestown, 109 Mass. 243......
  • Frontage Development Corp. v. Boston
    • United States
    • Massachusetts Superior Court
    • May 4, 2001
    ...in value of real estate in the vicinity by reason thereof." Allen v. Charlestown, 109 Mass. 243, 246 (1871). See also Parks v. Hampden, 120 Mass. 395, 397 (1876). argues that potential use of its remaining land as a laydown area was a general benefit because owners of other parcels of land ......
  • Sears v. Board of St. Com'rs of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1902
    ...546; Old Colony & F. R. R. Co. v. Inhabitants of Plymouth, 14 Gray, 155, 163; Whitman v. Railroad Co., 7 Allen, 313, 327; Parks v. Hampden Co., 120 Mass. 395; Roberts Board, 21 Kan. 247, 252. But it has been recognized that benefits which could not be set off might justify an assessment. Up......
  • 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