Smith v. Selectmen of Norwood
| Decision Date | 03 March 1916 |
| Citation | 223 Mass. 222,111 N.E. 851 |
| Parties | SMITH v. SELECTMEN OF NORWOOD et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.
Petition by Laura H. Smith against the Selectmen of Norwood and another for a writ of prohibition. Case reported. Petition dismissed.
The petition below alleges:
That on the 23d day of February, 1914, the selectmen of said Norwood, upon the petition of certain people, proceeded to lay out a certain public way over an upon said land.
That afterwards, to wit, on the 21st day of April, 1914, at a town meeting duly warned and called for said purpose, the matter of the acceptance of said laying out of said street duly came before said meeting, and said laying out was not accepted and allowed, and said meeting was dissolved.
That said board of selectmen has never laid out said way, except as aforesaid, and has taken no action whatsoever, since said town meeting, laying out or adjudicating; that public necessity and convenience require the location of said way upon your petitioner's said land, but nevertheless, on the 23d day of July, 1914, a certain vote was passed by another town meeting in said Norwood, whereby said town purported to vote that the town accept a new way leading through and over said land of your petitioner, as laid out by the selectmen under the provisions of law authorizing the assessment of betterments.
That since the date of said last-mentioned town meeting the respondents the board of selectmen of Norwood have passed a certain vote, purporting to order the superintendent of streets to enter upon and take possession of your petitioner's said land for the purposes of constructing said way, and have ordered your petitioner to remove the trees, fences, and other property located upon her said land, and said selectmen, your petitioner is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, are about to assess certain betterment taxes upon your petitioner's said land.
Daggett & Jefferson and Samuel R. Cutler, all of Boston, for petitioner.
Jas. A. Halloran, of Boston, for respondents.
This petition for a writ of prohibition was heard upon petition and answer, it being agreed that all the facts set forth in the answer were true. It must be considered on that footing. The ground of the petition is that the town of Norwood has attempted to take, for the purposes of a public way, land of the petitioner, by proceedings which are so defective as to amount to a nullity. These proceedings ended with a vote by the town on July 23, 1914. The respondents are the selectmen and superintendent of construction of streets of that town. On June 1, 1915, the respondent selectmen gave notice to the petitioner to remove within thirty days all trees, fences and other property upon the petitioner's said land. But they have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. True
... ... ___, 138 P. 342, ... 345; State v. Toomey, 27 S.D. 37, 129 N.W. 563; ... State v. Selectmen of Norwood, 223 Mass. 222, 111 ... N.E. 851, 852); the controversy before the State Engineer ... ...
-
Butler v. Selectmen of Town of Wakefield
...executive, administrative or legislative officers or bodies from acting where they have no authority.’ Smith v. Selectmen of Norwood, 223 Mass. 222, 223, 111 N. E. 851, 852. See, also, Lodge v. Fletcher, 184 Mass. 238, 68 N. E. 204. In entering into such an agreement or agreements as the vo......
-
Horn v. Baker
...became final. The office of prohibition is preventive, not corrective, and now there is nothing to prohibit. 32 Cyc. 603; 71 S.W. 1008-9; 111 N.E. 851. 2. writ of prohibition is never granted unless the inferior tribunal has clearly exceeded its authority and the party has no other protecti......
- Frisbee v. Prussian Nat. Ins. Co.