Sears v. Mayor & Aldermen of Worcester

62 L.R.A. 144, 62 N.E. 269, 180 Mass. 288, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1068
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 3, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 62 L.R.A. 144 (Sears v. Mayor & Aldermen of Worcester) 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
Sears v. Mayor & Aldermen of Worcester, 62 L.R.A. 144, 62 N.E. 269, 180 Mass. 288, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1068 (Mass. 1902).

Opinion

Lathrop, J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the mayor and aldermen of the city of Worcester in making an ‘ assessment for street betterments, under the Pub. Sts. c. 51, § 1.

While several questions were presented to the Chief Justice of this court, and are before us, on his report, the only one argued by the petitioner is an exception to the ruling that the assessment was not void because it exceeded one half of the ad[289]*289judged benefit by one half of a cent. The other questions we regard as waived.

We are of opinion that the ruling was right. As was said in ,Stone v. Boston, 2 Met. 220, 228: “ A petition for certiorari is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. It is not to be granted for the mere purpose of enabling a party to avoid the proceedings of an inferior tribunal, for technical errors. It must appear that manifest injustice has been done to the petitioner.” See also Pickford v. Mayor & Aldermen of Lynn, 98 Mass. 491, 496; Farmington River Water Power Co. v. County Commissioners, 112 Mass. 206, 212; Blake v. County Commissioners, 114 Mass. 583, 586; Lowell v. County Commissioners, 146 Mass. 403, 412; Haven v. County Commissioners, 155 Mass. 467 ; Devlin v. Dalton, 171 Mass. 338, 341.

It cannot be said in this case that manifest injustice has been done the petitioner. In the language of Chief Justice Gray, in Workman v. Worcester, 118 Mass. 168, 175: “A case can hardly be imagined which would more imperatively call for the application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex.”

Petition dismissed.

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

Related

Landers v. Eastern Racing Association, Inc.
97 N.E.2d 385 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Colantuoni v. Selectmen of Belmont
96 N.E.2d 870 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Feeney v. Eastern Racing Ass'n
22 N.E.2d 259 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Walsh v. District Court of Springfield
9 N.E.2d 555 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Kraas v. American Bakeries Co.
164 So. 565 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
A. Doykos & T. Pappas, Inc. v. Leventhal
195 N.E. 348 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Kane v. Board of Appeals
173 N.E. 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Whitney v. Judge of the District Court
171 N.E. 648 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Dowling v. Board of Assessors
168 N.E. 73 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Board of Appeal
167 N.E. 672 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Byfield v. City of Newton
141 N.E. 658 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Clark v. Henshaw Motor Co.
246 Mass. 386 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Attorney General v. City of Methuen
236 Mass. 564 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Swan v. Justices of Superior Court
111 N.E. 386 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 L.R.A. 144, 62 N.E. 269, 180 Mass. 288, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sears-v-mayor-aldermen-of-worcester-mass-1902.