Kidder v. Inhabitants of Oxford

116 Mass. 165, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 51
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 23, 1874·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The jury were authorized by law to include in their assessment of damages an allowance for interest from the time when the land was taken. Edmands v. Boston, 108 Mass. 535. The bill of exceptions does not show the date of actual entry upon the land, or raise any question as to the amount of [167]*167interest, if any interest might be allowed. The direction to the jury to assess the item of interest separately is expressly stated not to have been excepted to. The verdict returns both the principal sum and the interest as u damages sustained” by the petitioner. The entire verdict should therefore have been accepted.

But the verdict also shows that the whole of the damages awarded by the jury, other than by way of interest, was exactly the same in amount as the damages which had been awarded by the selectmen. As it thus clearly appears that the damages were not increased, the charges arising on the application for a jury must be paid by the petitioner, and not by the town. Gen. Sts. % 43, § 73. Verdict accepted; petitioner to pay charges.

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

Kidder v. Inhabitants of Oxford, 116 Mass. 165, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 51 (Mass. 1874).

116 Mass. 165 (Kidder v. Inhabitants of Oxford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Los Angeles v. Gager
102 P. 17 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
Shoemaker v. United States
147 U.S. 282 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Douglass v. Nichols
133 Mass. 470 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
First Baptist Society v. City of Fall River
119 Mass. 95 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)