Central Wharf & Wet Dock Corp. v. Proprietors of India Wharf
Opinion
The only easement which the plaintiff acquired under the indentures upon which the rights of the parties de[570] pend was of an open dock and common passageway for ships, boats and other waterborne craft. All the covenants, including that against erecting fixtures or buildings of any kind within the bounds of the dock, were incidental to the grant of this easement. The laying out of a street and filling up of the dock by the city, under authority conferred by statute, made the enjoyment of this easement impossible, and thereby extinguished it. Hancock v. Wentworth, 5 Met. 446. Canny v. Andrews, ante, 155. Mussey v. Union Wharf, 41 Maine, 34. 3 Toullier Droit Civil (5th ed.) 522. The plaintiff’s remedy for the destruction of this easement was by application for damages against the city under the St. of 1867, a. 324. Judgment for the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
123 Mass. 567 (Central Wharf & Wet Dock Corp. v. Proprietors of India Wharf) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.