Commonwealth v. Curley

101 Mass. 24
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 101 Mass. 24 (Commonwealth v. Curley) 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. Curley, 101 Mass. 24 (Mass. 1869).

Opinion

Colt, J.

Under the provisions of the Gen. Sts. c. 178, §§ 6, 7, the whole yard of a house of correction, though divided by a public street, against which it is suitably fenced and protected, must be regarded as adjoining or appurtenant within the terms of the statute. It is not required that the yard shall be immediately connected with the house itself. If it be a place entirely devoted to the purpose, sufficiently secure and suitably protected from all persons without, it is sufficient. The word appurtenant is not used in a technical sense in the statute, for land cannot be appurtenant to land, strictly speaking.

Judgment upon the verdict.

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

Related

Sturges v. Town of Chilmark
402 N.E.2d 1346 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1980)
Commonwealth v. Gosselin
301 N.E.2d 870 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1973)
Gruver-Cooley Jade Corporation v. Perlis
251 A.2d 589 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1969)
State v. Blan
69 Mo. 317 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 Mass. 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-curley-mass-1869.