Allen v. City of Charlestown

111 Mass. 123
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1872·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Wells, J.

The statute which authorizes a part of the charge for mating and repairing main drains or common sewers to be assessed upon persons who receive benefit thereby, does not require that such persons should have previous special notice, and opportunity to be heard before the mayor and aldermen or selectmen. Gen. Sts. c. 48, § 4. Before they can be legally “charged” with such an assessment, notice thereof must be given them; after wMch, if they desire to contest the fact or amount of their just liability, a proper tribunal is provided for the purpose. § 6. If no such desire or purpose is manifested, in the manner pointed out by the statute, at the end of three months after notice given them, the assessment is established as just, and they are charged therewith accordingly.

[125]*125This seems to us to be the clear purport of the statutes; and we discover nothing unreasonable in the provisions, and no want of proper regard for the rights of persons liable to be affected by such proceedings.

The assessment having been laid in accordance with the law in this respect, and no other objection thereto being shown, the judgment for the defendant in the Superior Court must be

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allen v. City of Charlestown, 111 Mass. 123 (Mass. 1872).

111 Mass. 123 (Allen v. City of Charlestown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Perry v. Davis & Younger
1907 OK 201 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Gately v. Old Colony Railroad
51 N.E. 5 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Smith v. Abington Savings Bank
50 N.E. 545 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Hennessy v. Douglas County
74 N.W. 983 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1898)
Tripp v. City of Yankton
74 N.W. 447 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1898)
Collins v. Mayor of Holyoke
15 N.E. 908 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Inhabitants of Leominster v. Conant
2 N.E. 690 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Gilmore v. Hentig
33 Kan. 156 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1885)
Cleveland v. Tripp
13 R.I. 50 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1880)
Holt v. City Council
127 Mass. 408 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)
Butler v. City of Worcester
112 Mass. 541 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1873)