DeVincent v. Public Welfare Commission

64 N.E.2d 923, 319 Mass. 170, 1946 Mass. LEXIS 556
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 4, 1946
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 64 N.E.2d 923 (DeVincent v. Public Welfare Commission) 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
DeVincent v. Public Welfare Commission, 64 N.E.2d 923, 319 Mass. 170, 1946 Mass. LEXIS 556 (Mass. 1946).

Opinion

Ronan, J.

This is a petition filed in the Superior Court on May 23, 1945, alleging that an order made by the respondent commission on May 16, 1945, and served on the petitioners on May 17, 1945, directing them to, abate a nuisance maintained by them upon their premises in Waltham, [171]*171is illegal and unjust and unreasonably interferes with the proper conduct of their farm, and seeking to have the said order altered or annulled by a jury. The commission by virtue of Spec. St. 1919, c. 114, has the powers and duties of a board of health. The petitioners have appealed from the sustaining of a demurrer and dismissal of the petition.

The petitioners contend that the order was made under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 111, § 143, as appearing in St. 1933, c. 269, § 2, authorizing a board of health to assign certain places for, or prohibit, the exercise of any trade or employment that is a nuisance, harmful to the inhabitants, dangerous to the public health, or attended by noisome and injurious odors, and that by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 111, § 147, they have the rights to have the order reviewed by a jury and, if it is shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable, to have it modified or annulled. The commission contends that the order was made in accordance with G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 111, §§ 122-125, conferring upon a board of health the power to examine into all nuisances, sources of filth and causes of sickness, to remove and prevent the same, and to cause the abatement of all nuisances.

We need not decide either contention. If the order was made under §§ 122-125, as the respondents contend, then it is settled that the order is not subject to a review or any proceedings brought by the petitioners solely for that purpose, and the petition must be dismissed. Stone v. Heath, 179 Mass. 385. Kineen v. Lexington Board of Health, 214 Mass. 587. Tracht v. County Commissioners of Worcester, 318 Mass. 681. On the other hand, if the order was made under § 143, as the petitioners contend, then the petition, filed on May 23, 1945, was too late. Such a petition must be filed “within three days after service of the order upon” the person who is thereby aggrieved unless for certain causes he is granted additional time up to thirty days by the court. It does not appear that any additional time was allowed and, the petition not having been filed within the statutory. period, the court was without jurisdiction to hear it. Peterson v. Waltham, 150 Mass. 564. International Paper Co. v. Commonwealth, 232 Mass. 7, 10. Hester v. Brockton, 251 [172]*172Mass. 41. Lexington v. Miskell, 260 Mass. 544. Old Colony Railroad v. Assessors of Quincy, 305 Mass. 509. Sullivan v. Jordan, 310 Mass. 12. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. City Club Corp. 318 Mass. 293, 296-297.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

P.J. Keating Company v. Town of Acushnet
Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2024
Beckwith v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority
238 N.E.2d 364 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1968)
Board of Health of Woburn v. Sousa
156 N.E.2d 52 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Del Grosso v. Board of Appeal of Revere
110 N.E.2d 836 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
City of Waltham v. Mignosa
98 N.E.2d 495 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 N.E.2d 923, 319 Mass. 170, 1946 Mass. LEXIS 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devincent-v-public-welfare-commission-mass-1946.