Sherwin v. Wigglesworth

129 Mass. 64, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 181
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 30, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 129 Mass. 64 (Sherwin v. Wigglesworth) 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
Sherwin v. Wigglesworth, 129 Mass. 64, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 181 (Mass. 1880).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

By the provisions of the act of Congress of March 3, 1873, and of the statute of the Commonwealth of 1873, c. 189, the title in land taken for the post-office in Boston does not vest in the United States until the assessment and payment of the damages thereby occasioned to the owners of the land. But the title which is purchased by and vests in the United States is the title as it existed when the petition for the valuation of the land was filed by the agent of the government. The time necessary to complete the judicial proceedings does not change the subject or the measure of compensation, or the parties who are entitled to it. In theory of law, although the compensation cannot be paid until it has been estimated, nor the title pass until the compensation is paid, yet both the compensation paid and the title acquired have relation back to the inception of the proceedings for the condemnation of the land to the public use. It has already been adjudged that the measure of the damages to be awarded to the owners is the value of the land at that date, and interest thereon. Burt v. Merchants’ Ins. Co. 115 Mass. 1. See also Parks v. Boston, 15 Pick. 198, 208; Old Colony Railroad v. Miller, 125 Mass. 1. And it would be [66]*66most unjust to charge the owners of the land with betterments or other taxes imposed after it has been designated and set apart for the public use, and while they cannot enjoy, nor improve it, nor obtain compensation for any increase in its value.

Judgment for the defendants.

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

Related

City of Long Beach v. Aistrup
330 P.2d 282 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Milmar Estate, Inc. v. Borough of Fort Lee
115 A.2d 592 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
United States v. 40,379 Square Feet of Land
58 F. Supp. 246 (D. Massachusetts, 1944)
People ex rel. Carofiglio v. Gill
9 N.E.2d 581 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1937)
City of Chicago v. McDonough
273 Ill. App. 392 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1934)
Passaic Consolidated Water Co. v. McCutcheon
144 A. 571 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1929)
H. H. Brown Co. v. Commissioner
8 B.T.A. 112 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1927)
Bowers v. Town of Bloomfield
86 A. 428 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1913)
Imbescheid v. Old Colony Railroad
50 N.E. 609 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Richardson v. City of Boston
20 N.E. 166 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 Mass. 64, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherwin-v-wigglesworth-mass-1880.