Inhabitants of Quincy v. Kennard

24 N.E. 860, 151 Mass. 563, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 266
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 19, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 24 N.E. 860 (Inhabitants of Quincy v. Kennard) 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
Inhabitants of Quincy v. Kennard, 24 N.E. 860, 151 Mass. 563, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 266 (Mass. 1890).

Opinion

Holmes, J.

It is admitted that the board of health had authority to forbid the exercise of the employment of keeping swine in the town of Quincy. Pub. Sts. c. 80, § 84. Commonwealth v. Young, 135 Mass. 526. Taunton v. Taylor, 116 Mass. 254. But it is argued that the order passed was invalid, because the prohibition contained in it was qualified by the words “ without a permit in writing first obtained from the board of health.” We are at a loss to see how it affects the validity of the order, [564]*564that the board expressly reserved to themselves a power to do what they could have done even if the prohibition had been absolute, or how the defendants are put in a worse position by the order contemplating the possibility that the board of health may grant them a written permit, than if it had excluded that possibility. The parties having agreed that the case should be finally disposed of by the decision upon the demurrer, an injunction will issue.

Demurrer overruled. Injunction to issue.

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

Related

Board of Health of Woburn v. Sousa
156 N.E.2d 52 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Commonwealth v. Sargent
117 N.E.2d 154 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
Butler v. Town of East Bridgewater
110 N.E.2d 922 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
City of Waltham v. Mignosa
98 N.E.2d 495 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
City of Malden v. Flynn
61 N.E.2d 107 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
City of Revere v. Blaustein
51 N.E.2d 772 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Town of Lincoln v. Murphy
49 N.E.2d 453 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Mitchell v. City of Roswell
111 P.2d 41 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1941)
Commonwealth v. Kimball
13 N.E.2d 18 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Goldsmith v. City of Indianapolis
196 N.E. 525 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1935)
Inhabitants of Swansea v. Pivo
265 Mass. 520 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Town of Lexington v. Miskell
260 Mass. 544 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Bizzell Ex Rel. Bizzell v. Board of Aldermen
135 S.E. 50 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Cutrona v. Mayor of Wilmington
124 A. 658 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1924)
Boyd v. City of Sierra Madre
183 P. 230 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Creaghan v. M. C.C. of Balt.
104 A. 180 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1918)
Creaghah v. Mayor of Baltimore
132 Md. 442 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1918)
People ex rel. Reuther v. Sisson
101 Misc. 429 (New York Supreme Court, 1917)
Biffer v. City of Chicago
116 N.E. 182 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1917)
Kilgour v. Gratto
112 N.E. 489 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 N.E. 860, 151 Mass. 563, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inhabitants-of-quincy-v-kennard-mass-1890.