City of Salem v. Maynes

123 Mass. 372, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 297
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 28, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 123 Mass. 372 (City of Salem v. Maynes) 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
City of Salem v. Maynes, 123 Mass. 372, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 297 (Mass. 1877).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

There can be no doubt of the right of the Legislature, in the exercise of the police power, and for the protection of persons and property against the dangers of fire, to authorize cities and towns, by ordinances and by-laws, to restrict or prohibit the erection of wooden buildings within the municipality, or within any district thereof. Respublica v. Duquet, 2 Yeates, 493. Wadleigh v. Gilman, 3 Fairf. 403. All contracts between individuals, and even charters granted by the state, are subject to the exercise of this power. Commonwealth v. Intoxicating liquors, 115 Mass. 153. Woodlawn Cemetery v. Everett, 118 Mass. 354. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113.

The St. of 1872, c. 243, has conferred on the cities and towns, in this Commonwealth authority to pass such ordinances and bylaws, and on this court jurisdiction in equity to restrain the construction of buildings in violation thereof. The case stated shows that the city of Salem duly passed an ordinance providing that no persons should erect or cause to be erected a wooden building exceeding certain dimensions within a fire district, the boundaries of which were fixed by the same ordinance ; and that the defendants began to erect such a building within those limits after the ordinance took effect. The facts that, before the passage of the ordinance, the defendants had begun work on the cellar upon the site of the proposed building, and had made a contract between themselves for the .erection of the building, and had bought and prepared lumber to carry out that contract, does not exempt them from the operation of the ordinance.

jDecree for the plaintiff.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Rogers
634 A.2d 245 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
Bortz Coal Co. v. Commonwealth
279 A.2d 388 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Maher v. Town of Brookline
158 N.E.2d 320 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
State ex rel. Stephens v. Kees
110 So. 2d 172 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1959)
Commonwealth v. Bove
12 Pa. D. & C.2d 672 (Elk County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1957)
Building Commissioner v. C. & H. Co.
65 N.E.2d 537 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1946)
Hamer v. Nashawena Mills, Inc.
52 N.E.2d 22 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
M. Spinelli & Sons Co. v. City of Cambridge
28 N.E.2d 240 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
State Ex Rel. Shaver v. Mayor of Coushatta
196 So. 388 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1940)
Akins's Case
20 N.E.2d 453 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Locatelli v. City of Medford
192 N.E. 57 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Commonwealth v. Higgins
277 Mass. 191 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Wheat v. Barrett
290 P. 1033 (California Supreme Court, 1930)
Kingshighway Presbyterian Church v. Sun Realty Co.
24 S.W.2d 108 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
Brougher v. Board of Public Works of San Francisco
271 P. 487 (California Supreme Court, 1928)
Slack v. Inspector of Buildings of Wellesley
160 N.E. 285 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
State Ex Rel. Manhein v. Harrison
114 So. 159 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1927)
Nectow v. City of Cambridge
157 N.E. 618 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
White's Appeal
134 A. 409 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
O'Brien v. Turner
150 N.E. 886 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 Mass. 372, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-salem-v-maynes-mass-1877.