Sherwin v. Wigglesworth
| Decision Date | 30 June 1880 |
| Citation | 129 Mass. 64 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Thomas Sherwin v. Thomas Wigglesworth & another |
Suffolk. Contract by the collector of the city of Boston against the executors of the will of Edward Wigglesworth, to recover taxes and betterments assessed upon several parcels of land in Boston formerly belonging to the defendant's testator. Writ dated November 8, 1878. The case was submitted to this court on agreed facts, in substance as follows:
Edward Wigglesworth was the owner of all the land in question on April 15, 1873, and thereafter until it was taken by the United States for a post-office, in pursuance of the U.S. St of March 3, 1873, and of the St. of 1873, c. 189. On April 16, 1873, a petition was filed, under and in accordance with these acts, by the agent of the United States, for the condemnation of the estate of Wigglesworth in said land. A verdict was rendered on this petition, and was accepted and recorded by the court on April 6, 1875; and final judgment was rendered thereon on August 16, 1876, and on the same day Wigglesworth was paid the amount of the judgment.
Taxes were assessed on this land by the city of Boston on May 1 1875, and on May 1, 1876; and in February 1875, assessments were made for betterments in respect of the widening of certain streets, made under orders approved April 18, 1873.
If the plaintiff was entitled to recover, judgment was to be entered for him for a sum stated; otherwise, for the defendants.
Judgment for the defendants.
E. P. Nettleton, for the plaintiff.
O. W. Holmes, Jr., for the defendants.
By the provisions of the act of Congress of March 3, 1873, and of the statute of the Commonwealth of 1873, c. 189, the title in land taken for the post-office in Boston does not vest in the United States until the assessment and payment of the damages thereby occasioned to the owners of the land. But the title which is purchased by and vests in the United States is the title as it existed when the petition for the valuation of the land was filed by the agent of the government. The time necessary to complete the judicial proceedings does not change the subject or the measure of compensation, or the parties who are entitled to it. In theory of law, although the compensation cannot be paid until it has been estimated, nor the title pass until the compensation is paid, yet both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Long Beach v. Aistrup
...52 La.Ann. 813, 27 So. 348, 349.3 Chicago Park Dist. v. Downey Coal Co., 1 Ill.2d 54, 115 N.E.2d 223, 45 A.L.R.2d 518; Sherwin v. Wigglesworth, 129 Mass. 64.4 Petition of City of Seattle, 43 Wash.2d 445, 261 P.2d 416; Independent-Consolidated School Dist. No. 27 of Mower County v. Waldron, ......
-
Milmar Estate v. Borough of Fort Lee
...to that property. The cases, recognizing this injustice, have made amends for it in two different ways. Compare Sherwin v. Wigglesworth, 129 Mass. 64 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1880), with In re City of New York, 40 App.Div. 281, 58 N.Y.S. 58 (App.Div.1899); In re City of New York (Matter of Riverside Par......
-
United States v. 40,379 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, ETC.
...Street when it filed its petition for condemnation on May 26, 1943. Burt v. Merchants' Insurance Co., 115 Mass. 1, 13; Sherwin v. Wigglesworth, 129 Mass. 64, 65; Turner v. Woodard, supra; Town of Hingham v. United States, supra. Even though pursuant to an order of this Court, the United Sta......
-
People ex rel. Carofiglio v. Gill
...in support of the ruling in the McDonough Case, In re Mayor, etc., of City of New York, 40 App.Div. 281, 58 N.Y.S. 58, and Sherwin v. Wigglesworth, 129 Mass. 64. In view of the ruling in the Price Case it is unnecessary for us to consider decisions of sister states, but we may say that in N......