Donovan v. City of Springfield

125 Mass. 371, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 79
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 27, 1878·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

1. It does not appear from the certificate of the sheriff that there was any error in allowing the question put to ove of the petitioners on cross-examination.

2. The part of the record of the mayor and aldermen, which related to damages awarded to other parties, was rightly excluded. It was res inter alios, and incompetent as an admission by the city.

3. The ruling as to setting off benefits evidently had reference only to the order of 1874, under which the petitioners were claiming damages. The only benefits allowed to be set off were those derived from the situation of the petitioners’ lands with reference to the street in question, enhancing their value in that regard. Such benefits were direct and special, although other lots upon the same street might be benefited in like manner. Allen v. Charlestown, 109 Mass. 243. Hilbourne v. Suffolk, 120 Mass. 393. Parks v. Hampden, 120 Mass. 395.

Verdict accepted.

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

Donovan v. City of Springfield, 125 Mass. 371, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 79 (Mass. 1878).

125 Mass. 371 (Donovan v. City of Springfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Amory v. Commonwealth
72 N.E.2d 549 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Town of Galax v. Waugh
129 S.E. 504 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1925)
Henry J. Perkins Co. v. City of Springfield
143 N.E. 329 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Bonafield's Heirs
90 S.E. 868 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1916)
Seattle v. Wald
137 P. 435 (Washington Supreme Court, 1913)
Butchers' Slaughtering & Melting Ass'n v. Commonwealth
47 N.E. 599 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Chase v. City of Portland
29 A. 1104 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1894)
Lewis v. City of Seattle
32 P. 794 (Washington Supreme Court, 1893)