Pitkin v. City of Springfield

112 Mass. 509
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 112 Mass. 509 (Pitkin v. City of Springfield) 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
Pitkin v. City of Springfield, 112 Mass. 509 (Mass. 1873).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The only taking of land, alleged in the petition or appearing by the record, was by the location of the highway in 1868. The St. of 1870, a. 278, did not authorize any new taking, but declared the location already made and the assessment of damages therefor by the board of aldermen to be valid, and extended the time of applying for a jury to determine the damages. The petitioner, by applying for a jury under this statute, admitted the validity of that location, and his damages were rightly estimated as of the date thereof. The question of the constitutionality of the St. of 1870 is not open to him in these proceedings. Judgment accepting the verdict affirmed.

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

Related

Shemeth v. Selectmen of Holden
58 N.E.2d 6 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Nichols v. Commissioner of Public Welfare
40 N.E.2d 275 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Cahalan v. Department of Mental Health
23 N.E.2d 918 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Bogigian v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation
143 N.E. 671 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Dorman's Case
236 Mass. 583 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Stevens
117 N.E. 588 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Etherton
1915 OK 20 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
New York Life Insurance v. Hardison
85 N.E. 410 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Gano v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
114 Iowa 713 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
Boston & Maine Railroad v. Graham
60 N.E. 405 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Newburyport Water Co. v. City of Newburyport
85 F. 723 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1898)
Dow v. Electric Co.
31 A. 22 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1894)
State v. Dupaquier
46 La. Ann. 577 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1894)
Day v. Worcester, Nashua, & Rochester Railroad
23 N.E. 824 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Moore v. Sanford
7 L.R.A. 151 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Cohen v. St. Louis, Fort Scott & Wichita Railroad
34 Kan. 158 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1885)
Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad v. Andrews
26 Kan. 702 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1882)
Commonwealth v. Carter
132 Mass. 12 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
Saunders v. City of Lowell
131 Mass. 387 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 Mass. 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitkin-v-city-of-springfield-mass-1873.