Sexton v. Inhabitants of North Bridgewater
Decision Date | 28 October 1874 |
Citation | 116 Mass. 200 |
Parties | James Sexton v. Inhabitants of North Bridgewater |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Plymouth. Petition to the county commissioners for a jury to assess damages for the taking of land by the respondent to lay out a town way by widening and straightening a private way extending from Main to Montello street in North Bridgewater. At the trial before a sheriff's jury, evidence was introduced to prove that a worked passage way passing the petitioner's land from Montello Street to Main Street, and more or less used by the petitioner and other abutters, had existed for about twelve years previous to the laying out the town way; that the town way in question was laid out over this passage way, and the way widened over the petitioner's land so that the line passed through his dwelling-house. It was admitted that the title of said way was in the heirs of Nathan Hayward, deceased, and lots, on which buildings had been erected, had been conveyed to abutters by said heirs, upon condition that said way should remain open forever; but it did not appear that any such conveyance had been made to the petitioner.
The petitioner put in evidence a certified copy of the vote of the defendant town, by which it appeared that the town had voted to accept the St. of 1869, c. 169, § 1-3.
The respondent called as a witness one of the selectmen of North Bridgewater, who was also an assessor; and after he had testified that the petitioner's estate was increased in value by the laying out of the way, the respondent's counsel was permitted to ask, the petitioner objecting, "What is the difference in the actual market value of the petitioner's estate, before and after the laying out of the town way in question, supposing the town way is to be built?" to which the witness answered, "One thousand dollars is a moderate estimate of the increased value."
The respondent called Frederick Howard as a witness, and after he had testified, the petitioner objecting, that in his opinion the petitioner's estate was worth three times what it was without the road, the respondent was permitted to ask, the petitioner objecting, "What are the facts and reasons for your opinion?" to which the witness answered, On cross-examination the witness testified that in his opinion the laying out of the way increased the value of the estates on the way 33 per cent. Except the petitioner's deed of the premises, no evidence of title, except by parol, was introduced by either party.
The presiding officer at the request of the respondent, the petitioner excepting, instructed the jury as follows:
The petitioner's counsel, after the evidence was closed, requested the presiding officer to give the following instructions to the jury:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mantorville Ry. & T. Co. v. Slingerland
...connections). Others, because of the statutory definition of benefits. Colorado v. Humphrey, 16 Colo. 64, 26 Pac. 165; cf. Sexton v. N. Inhabitants, 116 Mass. 200, 206. Drury v. Midland, 127 Mass. 571, 582, expressly does not decide that evidence as to the feasibility of putting in a side t......
-
Mantorville Ry. & Transfer Co. v. Slingerland (In re Mantorville Ry. & Transfer Co.)
...others, because of the statutory definition of benefits (Colo. Cent. Ry. Co. v. Humphrey, 16 Colo. 64, 26 Pac. 165; cf. Sexton v. N. Bridgewater, 116 Mass. 200, 206).Drury v. Midland Ry., 127 Mass. 571, 582, expressly does not decide that evidence as to the feasibility of putting in a sidet......
-
Mantorville Railway & Transfer Company v. Slingerland
...connections). Others, because of the statutory definition of benefits. Colorado v. Humphrey, 16 Colo. 64, 26 P. 165; cf. Sexton v. N. Inhabitants, 116 Mass. 200, 206. Drury v. Midland, 127 Mass. 571, 582, expressly not decide that evidence as to the feasibility of putting in a sidetrack on ......
-
City Welding and Mfg. Co. v. Gidley-Eschenheimer Corp.
...314 Mass. 336, 340-344, 50 N.E.2d 36 (1943). Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 329 Mass. 333, 335, 108 N.E.2d 559 (1952). See Sexton v. North Bridgewater, 116 Mass. 200, 207 (1874). See also Liacos, Handbook of Massachusetts Evidence 114 (5th ed. 1981); 2 Wigmore § 675 (Chadbourn rev. Accordingly, we......