Buell v. County of Worcester

119 Mass. 372, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 36
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 7, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 119 Mass. 372 (Buell v. County of Worcester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Buell v. County of Worcester, 119 Mass. 372, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 36 (Mass. 1876).

Opinion

Colt, J.

The petitioner claimed damages occasioned by a change of grade in the street. He was entitled to recover the diminution in value occasioned to his property in the condition it was when the change was made from a lower to a higher grade. Upon that question, and as one of the steps in determining it [375]*375the jury might consider what expenses a prudent man would reasonably incur in putting the property, with reference to the new grade, in as good condition as it was before, being limited in their verdict to compensation for the diminished value of the property. This excludes a recovery for particular improvements in the estate, or changes unreasonably made, or not necessary to put the property in as good condition as before. The rule has been frequently applied in cases of this description and in analogous cases. Foster v. Boston, 22 Pick. 33. Plympton v. Woburn, 11 Gray, 415. Chase v. Worcester, 108 Mass. 60. Hartshorn v. County of Worcester, 113 Mass. 111. Bates v. Ray, 102 Mass. 458.

There is nothing in the condition of the property which should vary the rule, or which calls for the exclusion of the evidence offered. The petitioner had the right to construct the foundation of his building so as to meet the anticipated change of grade. If the change brought the street higher than he anticipated, it is difficult to see why the respondent has suffered less than if his foundations had been adapted to the still lower grade of the old street. The petitioner had the right to use and increase the profitable capacity of his estate. And his purpose seems to have been to diminish rather than increase his claim for damages.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Kane v. Town of Hudson
389 N.E.2d 737 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1979)
Brooklyn Trust Co. v. City of New York
109 Misc. 593 (New York Supreme Court, 1919)
Wooley v. City of Fall River
108 N.E. 367 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Attorney General v. Stone
95 N.E. 395 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
City of Detroit v. Detroit United Railway
120 N.W. 600 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1909)
Chase v. City of Portland
29 A. 1104 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 Mass. 372, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buell-v-county-of-worcester-mass-1876.