Commonwealth v. Colby

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Colby

128 Mass. 91, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 11

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 12, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 Mass. 91 (Commonwealth v. Colby) 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

Commonwealth v. Colby, 128 Mass. 91, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 11 (Mass. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Lord, J.

There is no question but that, when the defendant made his purchase, the land now covered by four houses was a single lot. The question to be tried was one of fact, whether the defendant had divided that lot and made of it four lots. That he might have made the one lot into four is unquestionable. If he had sold each of the four dwelling-houses to a different person, there would have been no question that his one lot would have been made into four. If these four several houses had been under lease to four different tenants at the time of the offence complained of, and about which there was no evidence, it would be equally clear that there were four distinct estates, for the condition of which each occupant would be responsible to the extent of his occupancy. It is clear, therefore, that the presiding judge could not rule as matter of law that there was but a single lot, and if he erred in not ruling as matter of law that there were four lots, and submitted that question as matter of fact to the jury, who found that in fact there were four lots, the defendant was not thereby injured.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Lord, J.

There is no question but that, when the defendant made his purchase, the land now covered by four houses was a single lot. The question to be tried was one of fact, whether the defendant had divided that lot and made of it four lots. That he might have made the one lot into four is unquestionable. If he had sold each of the four dwelling-houses to a different person, there would have been no question that his one lot would have been made into four. If these four several houses had been under lease to four different tenants at the time of the offence complained of, and about which there was no evidence, it would be equally clear that there were four distinct estates, for the condition of which each occupant would be responsible to the extent of his occupancy. It is clear, therefore, that the presiding judge could not rule as matter of law that there was but a single lot, and if he erred in not ruling as matter of law that there were four lots, and submitted that question as matter of fact to the jury, who found that in fact there were four lots, the defendant was not thereby injured.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 Mass. 91, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-colby-mass-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack