Robinson v. Com.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1957 |
| Citation | 141 N.E.2d 727,335 Mass. 630 |
| Parties | Henry O. ROBINSON v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Norman T. Byrnes, Hingham (Arnold W. Hunnewell, Jr., So. Natick, with him) for petitioner.
George Fingold, Atty. Gen. and Vincent J. Celia, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, SPALDING, WILLIAMS and WHITTEMORE, JJ.
These are the petitioner's exceptions to the exclusion of evidence taken at a trial for the assessment of damages arising out of the taking by the Commonwealth of land owned by the petitioner, located in Waltham, for the purpose of constructing a limited access highway. The jury returned a verdict of 'no damages.'
Damages were sought for the actual taking of portions of three parcels of land known as lots 2, 7, and 18, and totaling 19.24 acres, and for consequential damages resulting to the remaining portion of these lots, herein referred to as lots 2A, 7A, and 18A, respectively, and totaling 10.74 acres. The petitioner offered to show that lots 2 and 2A formed an irregular octagon bounded on seven sides by land of the city of Cambridge and on the eighth side by the Fitchburg branch of the Boston and Maine Railroad; that these two lots sloped down from an elevation of about 140 feet above sea level to about 54 feet above the sea level at the edge of the Stony Brook Reservoir, a water supply of the city of Cambridge; that these two lots consisted of ledges which at some places protruded through the surface; that at other places they were covered by small scrub and occasional trees; that lots 7, 7A, 18, and 18A are largely swamp land; that the six lots were for the most part zoned for residential districts by the city of Waltham; and that all six parcels of land were vacant at the time of the taking on April 25, 1950. There was no evidence that they had ever been put to any use prior thereto.
Besides, in pursuance of St.1897, c. 510, the locus, being in the watershed of a water supply of a large city has since 1899 been subject to the strict rules and regulations of the State board of health, a copy of which is contained in the record.
The petitioner contended that these zoning ordinances were invalid and offered to show through one Warner, who appears to have been the only witness at the trial that as applied to the parcels in question the ordinances were invalid, that if freed from the ordinances lots 2 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George F. Davey, Inc. v. Town of Norton
...in its action for assessment of damages the question of the validity of its permit will be raised.' See Robinson v. Commonwealth, 335 Mass. 630, 631--632, 141 N.E.2d 727 (1957). As the defendants' brief does not challenge that assertion we shall proceed in this opinion on the basis that the......
-
Congressional School of Aeronautics, Inc. v. State Roads Commission
...(the county) was a necessary and proper party. MacEwen v. City of New Rochelle, 149 Misc. 251, 267 N.Y.S. 36.) In Robinson v. Commonwealth, 335 Mass. 630, 141 N.E.2d 727, it was held that an attempt to show the value of the property sought to be condemned for a use not permitted under the a......
-
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. State
...State Highway Comm. v. Graeler, 527 S.W.2d 421 Linge v. Iowa State Highway Comm., 260 Iowa 1226, 150 N.W.2d 642; Robinson v. Commonwealth, 335 Mass. 630, 141 N.E.2d 727). Other courts have held that even if the zoning authority is a party to the condemnation proceeding, the only proper meth......
-
Appropriation of Easement for Highway Purposes, In re
...Long Beach City High School District of Los Angeles County v. Stewart, 30 Cal.2d 763, 185 P.2d 585, 173 A.L.R. 249; Robinson v. Commonwealth, 335 Mass. 630, 141 N.E.2d 727; 4 Nichols on Eminent Domain (3 Ed.), 140, Section 12.322. But see Andrews v. City of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d ......