Orient Realty Co. v. Assad

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Orient Realty Co. v. Assad

213 N.E.2d 408, 350 Mass. 764

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 N.E.2d 408 (Orient Realty Co. v. Assad) 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

Orient Realty Co. v. Assad, 213 N.E.2d 408, 350 Mass. 764 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff in this suit in equity has appealed from a final decree dismissing the bill. It now appears that during the pend-ency of the suit the plaintiff conveyed the land which it once owned on Emile Street in Worcester. The plaintiff’s ownership of that land was the. sole basis upon which it could have claimed any right to a mandatory injunction regarding the projection of the defendants’ house into the street. The relief sought is not applicable to an existing or substantial right of the plaintiff. The subject matter of the suit has become moot. See Blume v. William Shenkel & Sons Co. 266 Mass. 15, 16; Independent-Progressive Party v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 266 Mass. 18, 21-23. We might add that a review of the record indicates that on the merits the decree dismissing the bill was not error.

Decree affirmed.

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

The plaintiff in this suit in equity has appealed from a final decree dismissing the bill. It now appears that during the pend-ency of the suit the plaintiff conveyed the land which it once owned on Emile Street in Worcester. The plaintiff’s ownership of that land was the. sole basis upon which it could have claimed any right to a mandatory injunction regarding the projection of the defendants’ house into the street. The relief sought is not applicable to an existing or substantial right of the plaintiff. The subject matter of the suit has become moot. See Blume v. William Shenkel & Sons Co. 266 Mass. 15, 16; Independent-Progressive Party v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 266 Mass. 18, 21-23. We might add that a review of the record indicates that on the merits the decree dismissing the bill was not error.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 N.E.2d 408, 350 Mass. 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orient-realty-co-v-assad-mass-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack