Ranlett v. City of Lowell

• Decision Date: 17 March 1879
• Citation: 126 Mass. 431
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Orrin B. Ranlett & another v. City of Lowell

126 Mass. 431

Orrin B. Ranlett & another v. City of Lowell

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

March 17, 1879

Middlesex. Tort for injury caused by the overflowing of a common sewer into the plaintiff's cellar and shop through a drain connecting the cellar with the common sewer.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., it appeared that the common sewer was built under the St. of 1869, c 111, in Dutton Street in Lowell in 1873, under the direction of the mayor and aldermen, the superintendent of streets having charge of the work; that at the time the sewer was built, Daniel H. Richardson was the owner of the estate on which the plaintiff's premises now are; that Richardson is dead, and the plaintiffs are tenants of his heirs; that Richardson and other abutters on the street were assessed a portion of the expenses of building the sewer, and Richardson's assessment was paid.

By the ordinances of the city of Lowell, "No person shall cut into, interfere with or obstruct a main drain or common sewer, or shall enter a private drain therein, except as herein prescribed." A subsequent section provides that "the board of aldermen may grant written permits to any persons to enter any main drain or common sewer;" "provided such persons shall first pay the assessment and provided further that, in the materials, constructing and maintaining of such particular drain, he shall comply with the conditions that the board of aldermen may prescribe." And, by another section, a penalty is imposed for violating the above provisions.

Some time after the sewer was completed, Richardson laid a private drain from the bottom of the cellar now occupied by the plaintiffs, and entered the same into the common sewer; but there was no evidence that Richardson had any authority or permission so to do from the city or any of its officers, or from the mayor and aldermen; nor did it appear that the existence of the private drain was known to the city or any of its officers until after the occurrence of the damage complained of in this action.

The overflow, which consisted of water and filthy and offensive sewage, occurred in August 1877. The plaintiffs offered evidence tending to show that the overflow was caused by obstructions in the sewer, which prevented a free flow and passage of water and sewage through the sewer; and that the obstructions existed through want of due care and attention on the part of the defendant, and by reason of the negligence and...