Fall River Print Works v. City of Fall River
Opinion
1. The Gen. Sts. c. 43, § 42, provide that when a verdict is set aside, “ the commissioners, on application therefor, shall order a new jury.” It is obviously proper, if not necessary, that the party desiring further proceedings should file a petition, reciting the prior proceedings, including the setting aside of the verdict, in order that the basis of the further proceedings may appear of record. The petition was proper as an application for a new jury, and the warrant issued thereon was in conformity with the statute.
2. Whether any part of the land for which damages were claimed had been so used by the public, with the acquiescence or by the dedication of the petitioners, as to make it already a part of the highway, was a question of fact for the jury upon all the evidence in the case. The instructions prayed for, that it had become part of the highway, so that no damages in respect thereto were recoverable, were rightly refused.
3. The objection that a considerable portion of the damages allowed to be proved were recoverable only in the manner provided by the Gen. Sts. e. 44, §§ 19, 20,
4. But evidence of “ the amounts paid by the respondents to the Fall River Manufactory and the Annawan Manufacturing Company respectively, for land taken from them by the widening of ” the same street was of a mere settlement of damages, and not an ordinary sale and purchase of an estate, and was incompetent, and improperly admitted. Presbrey v. Old Colony & Newport Railway Co. 103 Mass. 1, 9. Verdict set aside.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
110 Mass. 428 (Fall River Print Works v. City of Fall River) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.