Town of Lexington v. Menotomy Trust Co.

23 N.E.2d 559, 304 Mass. 283, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1078
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 17, 1939·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

Lummus, J.

The defendant Menotomy Trust Company foreclosed its mortgage upon a tract of land containing fifty-two acres on Lincoln Street in Lexington. It gave the defendant Cadario permission at “a fixed price per acre” to strip the loam from the land and to use or sell the loam, provided it should not be sold on the premises. Not more than half the tract “is now suitable and available for the removal of loam.” Cadario has put a steam shovel to work, [284] stripping the loam and piling it on the land, preparatory to removal.

The plaintiff seeks to restrain the work as a violation of its zoning by-law. The statute permits a town to regulate and restrict by zoning by-law the “use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes,” and within districts established by by-law to regulate and restrict the “use of land.” G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 40, § 25, in the form appearing in St. 1933, c. 269, § 1. The case is not one in which the by-law extends only to the use of buildings as distinguished from land. Wilbur v. Newton, 301 Mass. 97, 100-101. The tract is situated in a highly restricted R. 1 district established by the by-law, in which few besides residential uses are permitted. Section 20 of the by-laws provides: “Any building, structure or use of premises' not herein expressly permitted, is hereby forbidden.” In each district the “designated uses of lands, buildings, structures, or parts thereof, and no others,” are permitted. By-law, § 4. Among the “designated uses” permitted in a R. 1 district, the only one suggested as material is, “4. Farms and customary uses accessory thereto only, and truck gardens.” Obviously the stripping of loam from about twenty-six acres of land is inconsistent with such a use and cannot fall within it. Neither is such stripping incidental to any other permitted use.

Since the use of the land for the purpose of obtaining a supply of loam is an unpermitted use, the plaintiff is entitled to relief. It is of no importance that that unpermitted use may not have amounted to a business. The final decree dismissing the bill is reversed. A final decree is to be entered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants Menotomy Trust Company and Cadario, with costs.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Town of Lexington v. Menotomy Trust Co., 23 N.E.2d 559, 304 Mass. 283, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1078 (Mass. 1939).

23 N.E.2d 559 (Town of Lexington v. Menotomy Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

M. DeMatteo Construction Co. v. Board of Appeals
334 N.E.2d 51 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1975)
George F. Davey, Inc. v. Town of Norton
310 N.E.2d 609 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1974)
Kelleher v. Board of Selectmen of Pembroke
294 N.E.2d 512 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1973)
Goodwin v. Board of Selectmen of Hopkinton
261 N.E.2d 60 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1970)
Parrish v. Board of Appeal of Sharon
223 N.E.2d 81 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1967)
Town of Lexington v. Simeone
134 N.E.2d 123 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1956)
Valley View Village v. Proffett
221 F.2d 412 (Sixth Circuit, 1955)
Valley View Village, Inc. v. Proffett
73 Ohio Law. Abs. 334 (N.D. Ohio, 1955)
Valley View Village, Inc. v. Proffett
221 F.2d 412 (Sixth Circuit, 1955)
Proffett v. Valley View Village, Inc.
123 F. Supp. 339 (N.D. Ohio, 1953)
Butler v. Town of East Bridgewater
110 N.E.2d 922 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
Town of Brookline v. Co-Ray Realty Co.
93 N.E.2d 581 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Town of Seekonk v. John J. McHale & Sons, Inc.
90 N.E.2d 325 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Town of Burlington v. Dunn
61 N.E.2d 243 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
In Re Angelus
150 P.2d 908 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Town of North Reading v. Drinkwater
34 N.E.2d 631 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Town of Saugus v. B. Perini & Sons, Inc.
26 N.E.2d 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)