Sears v. City of Worcester

• Decision Date: 03 January 1902
• Parties: SEARS v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF WORCESTER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

180 Mass. 288

62 N.E. 269

SEARS v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF WORCESTER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

January 3, 1902

COUNSEL

Chas.

W. Wood and Chas. H. Wood, for petitioner.

Arthur P. Rugg, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP, J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the mayor and aldermen of the city of Worcester in making an assessment for street betterments, under Pub. St. c. 51, § 1.

While several questions were presented to the chief justice of this court, and are before us on his report, the only one argued by the petitioner is an exception to the ruling that the assessment was not void because it exceeded one-half of the adjudged benefit by one-half of a cent. The other questions we regard as waived. We are of opinion that the ruling was right. As was said in Stone v. City of Boston, 2 Metc. 220, 228: 'A petition for certiorari is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. It is not to be granted for the mere purpose of enabling a party to avoid the proceedings of an inferior tribunal for technical errors. It must appear that manifest injustice has been done to the petitioner.' See, also, Pickford v. Mayor, etc., 98 Mass. 491, 496; Farmington River Water Power Co. v. County Com'rs, 112 Mass. 206, 212; Blake v. Commissioners, 114 Mass. 583, 586; Lowell v. Commissioners, 146 Mass. 403, 412, 16 N.E. 8; Haven v. Commissioners, 155 Mass. 467, 29 N.E. 1083; Devlin v. Dalton, 171 Mass. 338, 341, 50 N.E. 632, 41 L. R. A. 379. It cannot be said in this case that manifest injustice has been done the petitioner. In the language of Chief Justice Gray, in Workman v. City of Worcester, 118 Mass. 168, 175: 'A case can hardly be imagined which would more imperatively call for the application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex.'

Petition dismissed.