Cochis v. Board of Health of Canton

127 N.E.2d 575, 332 Mass. 721, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 729
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 16, 1955
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 127 N.E.2d 575 (Cochis v. Board of Health of Canton) 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
Cochis v. Board of Health of Canton, 127 N.E.2d 575, 332 Mass. 721, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 729 (Mass. 1955).

Opinion

Counihan, J.

This is a bill for a declaratory decree under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231A, inserted by St. 1945, c. 582, § 1. It alleges that a controversy exists between the parties and prays for a decree that certain regulations adopted by the defendant are invalid. The regulations complained of by the plaintiffs are noted in the margin or in the decree of the judge hereinafter set forth. After hearing the judge decreed

“1. That chapter VIII of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health of the town of Canton, entitled 'Piggeries’ 1 is hereby declared to be a valid regulation;

“2. That section 4 of chapter V of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health of the town of Canton which provides: 'No garbage shall be disposed of within the limits of the town of Canton’ is hereby declared to be invalid and of no force or effect;

"3. That section 2 of chapter VI of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health of Canton which provides: ‘No person shall transport through the streets of the Town of Canton garbage, offal or other offensive substances collected outside the Town of Canton unless he shall first have registered with the Board of Health by filing with the Board a statement of registration. Such statement of registration shall state the places from which and to which the substance is *723 to be transported, a brief description of the vehicle or vehicles which will be used for such transportation, the residence and business address of the applicant and such other information as the Board may require. No person who has filed such statement of registration shall transport or continue to transport said substances through the streets of the Town of Canton unless he does so in accordance with these rules and regulations and any other applicable rules and regulations of the Board of Health’ is hereby declared to be valid, except that portion thereof which requires as a part of the registration a statement as to the place from which the substance is to be transported is hereby declared to be invalid and of no force or effect; ¡^emphasis supplied]

“4. That chapter VII of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health of the Town of Canton entitled, ‘Nuisances’ 1 is hereby declared to be a valid regulation.

“5. That that portion of chapter XIV of the Rules and *724 Regulations of the Board of Health of the Town of Canton which provides: ‘Whoever violates any provision of these rules and regulations shall be fined not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) by the court having jurisdiction, unless otherwise provided by law’ is hereby declared to be invalid and of no force or effect.”

The case comes here upon the appeals of all the parties. At the argument before us the defendant waived its appeal so we consider only the appeal of the plaintiffs. There was no error.

The statute authorizing boards of health to make reasonable regulations is G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. Ill, § 31, as amended by St. 1937, c. 285. Other sections of c. 111 authorize such boards to make specific prohibitions. Among these is § 143, as appearing in St. 1948, c. 480, § 1, under which the board presumably acted in promulgating c. VIII of the regulations entitled “Piggeries.” The judge correctly decreed this regulation to be valid. In Commonwealth v. Young, 135 Mass. 526, which arose under Gen. Sts. c. 26, § 52, a predecessor of § 143, it was said at page 529, “The board of health had authority under that section of the statute, if it deemed such employment [keeping of pigs]' a nuisance, to prohibit its exercise within the limits of the town.” And more recently we said that a board of health “is empowered by § 143 to prohibit the exercise of the trade or employment [fish processing] as a whole whenever by any of the methods employed it has become or may become a nuisance or otherwise offensive as set forth in the statute.” Board of Health of Wareham v. Marine By-Products Co. 329 Mass. 174, 178. Waltham v. Mignosa, 327 Mass. 250.

The plaintiffs further contend that c. VIII of the regulations entitled “Piggeries” is invalid because it does not conform to G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. Ill, §§ 143-149, inclusive. They assert that any violation of § 143 must be first complained of in the form of an order of the board to be served upon the occupant or person in charge of the premises in which the prohibited business is being conducted. The answer to this, however, is to be found in Taunton v. Taylor, *725 116 Mass. 254, at page 261, where it was said that “an order of the board of health, under the Gen. Sts. e. 26, § 52 [a predecessor of § 143], is not in the nature of an adjudication of a particular case, but of a general regulation of the trade or employment mentioned therein.” See Kineen v. Board of Health of Lexington, 214 Mass. 587, 591. It is plain that c. VIII of the regulations is in its nature general and that after its adoption c. Ill, § 146, which requires an order to be issued and served, operates. We must assume that the board in Canton will comply with the provisions of § 146 in enforcing regulations adopted under § 143.

While the defendant waived its appeal, we feel constrained to say that the action of the judge declaring that § 4 of c. V of the regulations (garbage disposal within the town) is invalid is correct. Because its appeal was waived by the defendant, we do not consider the decree of the judge that part of § 2 of c. VI is invalid.

The plaintiffs contend that § 2 of c. VI of the regulations is invalid in its entirety and that the decree of the judge that in large part it is valid is incorrect. They misconstrue, however, the provisions of c. Ill, § 31 A, as appearing in St. 1937, c. 282, as amended by St. 1945, c. 423, 1 under which the board of health was authorized to make this regulation. The first paragraph of § 31A requires a permit to transport garbage, offal, and other offensive substances through the streets of a town. The second paragraph allows the transportation of such offensive material through the streets of a town in which such substances are not collected provided *726 one who so transports registers with the board of health of such town. Read as a whole, we believe that the statute authorizes the adoption of a regulation which requires a permit to transport the offensive substances collected within the town or which are collected outside and are brought into the town for disposal there. It requires registration only by one who transports such substances through the town when going from a point outside the town to another point outside. The regulation is valid in order that the board of health may determine whether to require a permit or a registration so that they may learn where such offensive substances are to be disposed of and thus retain some control over their use or disposition if it is to be within the town.

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

Related

Independence Park, Inc. v. Board of Health
25 Mass. App. Ct. 489 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1988)
Building Inspector of Mansfield v. Curvin
494 N.E.2d 42 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1986)
Arthur D. Little, Inc. v. Commissioner of Health & Hospitals
481 N.E.2d 441 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1985)
Moysenko v. Board of Health of North Andover
197 N.E.2d 679 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1964)
Town of Holden v. Holden Suburban Supply Co.
178 N.E.2d 74 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1961)
Board of Health of Franklin v. Hass
173 N.E.2d 808 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1961)
Board of Health of Woburn v. Sousa
156 N.E.2d 52 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 N.E.2d 575, 332 Mass. 721, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochis-v-board-of-health-of-canton-mass-1955.