Cobb v. City of Boston

112 Mass. 181
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 112 Mass. 181 (Cobb v. City of Boston) 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
Cobb v. City of Boston, 112 Mass. 181 (Mass. 1873).

Opinion

Wells, J.

The question to be determined in each issue was the market value of the land at the time it was taken by the city.

The petitioner Cobb was not entitled to the advantages, whether real or speculative, which might result from improvements to be made by the city, after taking the land. Neither the fact that such improvements were afterwards made, nor that they were contemplated before the land was actually taken, was competent, as in dependent evidence, to show what the market value was. So far as the market value was in fact affected by the knowledge of what was to be done, or of what was contemplated, the petitioner Cobb was allowed the full benefit of it. His witnesses took it into consideration in making their estimate of value, to which they testified; and were also allowed to state it as a reason for such estimate. This was all he was entitled to.

Upon the claim of Smith, the defendant offered to prove, aa evidence of market value, the sum paid by the city, by agreement with the owner, for another lot similarly situated. A price so fixed by compromise, when there can be no other purchaser, [184]*184and the seller has no option to refuse to sell, and can only elect between the acceptance of the price offered and the delay, uncertainty, and trouble of legal proceedings for an assessment, is not a reasonable or fair test of market value. It is in no sense a sale in the market. The evidence was properly rejected.

The result is that on each issue the verdict is to be

Accepted.

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

Related

Pankauski v. Greater Lawrence Sanitary District Commission
430 N.E.2d 1228 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1982)
United-Carr Inc. v. Cambridge Redevelopment Authority
289 N.E.2d 833 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1972)
Perlmutter v. State Roads Commission
269 A.2d 586 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1970)
Bruce v. State, Department of Public Works
176 A.2d 846 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1962)
Amory v. Commonwealth
72 N.E.2d 549 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Epstein v. Boston Housing Authority
58 N.E.2d 135 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
United States v. 2,877.37 Acres of Land
52 F. Supp. 696 (S.D. Texas, 1943)
United States v. Meyer
113 F.2d 387 (Seventh Circuit, 1940)
Wright v. Commonwealth
190 N.E. 593 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Washington Home for Incurables v. Hazen
70 F.2d 847 (D.C. Circuit, 1934)
Henry J. Perkins Co. v. City of Springfield
143 N.E. 329 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Bonaparte v. Mayor of Baltimore
101 A. 594 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1917)
Perkins v. City of Princeton
92 S.E. 242 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1917)
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Bonafield's Heirs
90 S.E. 868 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1916)
Burley v. Old Colony Railroad
219 Mass. 483 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
St. Louis Electric Terminal Railway Co. v. MacAdaras
166 S.W. 307 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
Coate v. Memphis Railroad Terminal Co.
120 Tenn. 525 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1908)
Guyandot Valley R'y Co. v. Buskirk
50 S.E. 521 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1905)
Dady v. Condit
70 N.E. 1088 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1904)
O'Malley v. Commonwealth
65 N.E. 30 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 Mass. 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-city-of-boston-mass-1873.