Home/Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court/Village on the Hill, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority

Village on the Hill, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority

202 N.E.2d 602, 348 Mass. 107, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 681
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 12, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 202 N.E.2d 602 (Village on the Hill, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority) 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
Village on the Hill, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, 202 N.E.2d 602, 348 Mass. 107, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 681 (Mass. 1964).

Opinion

Cutter, J.

These two cases grow out of the authority’s eminent domain taking of land of the plaintiff (Village) in the Brighton district of Boston in connection with extending the Massachusetts turnpike to Boston. The first ease, a bill primarily for declaratory relief, alleges that the takings were illegal and part of a plan by the authority and a defendant in the equity suit, Rivett Lathe & Grinder, Inc. (Rivett), to deprive Village of its property for the benefit of Rivett. The bill also seeks injunctive relief concerning the relocation (on or near Village’s property) of a private way known as Newton Street and the construction, in part upon land taken from Village, of a factory building designed for Rivett’s use. The second case is a petition by Village for a writ of mandamus to compel the building commissioner of Boston to enforce the Boston zoning law (St. 1924, c. 488, § 18) which at the time of the filing of the petition (May 10, 1963) placed in a general residence district part of the land upon which the factory building was being constructed.

*109 The facts are stated, except as otherwise indicated, upon the basis of the trial judge’s findings in these eases. In the equity case, Village has appealed from a final decree that the authority’s taking of Village’s land “was a taking for a public purpose and not for the private need of Rivett.” In the mandamus case, Village has appealed from an order that the petition be denied.

The Equity Suit.

Rivett owned a plant at a point somewhat east of the area with which the bill is concerned. In 1957, one Hunt, Riv-ett’s president, learned from the authority’s chairman that the Rivett plant would probably be taken for the turnpike extension. Hunt was advised to “take steps to relocate” the plant. In July, 1959, Hunt and his wife bought a parcel in Waltham and gave Rivett an option to purchase it at the price paid by the Hunts.

There was a delay for some time when plans for selling certain authority bonds were postponed, but in January or February, 1961, Hunt ascertained that the turnpike extension would go through his plant. In March, 1961, representatives of the authority told Hunt that there would be “extra land” in the Faneuil Dump area, near the Newton-Boston boundary, which might be suitable for Rivett’s new plant. “This area consisted of land owned by the Boston & Albany Railroad which the . . . [a]uthority had a right to purchase. ’ ’ On July 16,1962, Hunt received a plan from Rivett’s engineers (Lockwood and G-reene) indicating “a proposed plant within . . . the Faneuil Dump area previously owned by the . . . [r]ailroad.”

At meetings in September, 1962, attended by Hunt and representatives of the authority, Rivett’s damages for the taking of its old plant were determined and Rivett (subject to the approval of its directors) agreed to buy part of the dump area for $100,000 “if access and utilities were” available. Hunt, instead of moving to Waltham or elsewhere, “preferred to relocate ... in the Brighton area” where most of Rivett’s employees lived. Consultations with the mayor and the city’s assessing commissioner resulted in as- *111 sur anees (apparently designed to retain Bivett’s properties, business, and jobs in Boston) concerning 1963, 1964, and 1965 assessments on the land to be purchased and the building to be constructed by Bivett.

*110

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

Related

Town of Boxford v. Massachusetts Highway Department
940 N.E.2d 404 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2010)
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. City of Somerville
451 Mass. 80 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2008)
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. City of Somerville
22 Mass. L. Rptr. 289 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2007)
Pima County v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
127 P.3d 64 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2006)
Hanna v. Town of Framingham
802 N.E.2d 1061 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2004)
Greater Lawrence Sanitary District v. Town of North Andover
785 N.E.2d 337 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2003)
City of Springfield v. Dreison Investments, Inc.
11 Mass. L. Rptr. 379 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2000)
Town of Bourne v. Plante
429 Mass. 329 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1999)
Durkin v. Board of Appeals of Falmouth
488 N.E.2d 6 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1986)
Maxey v. Board of Zoning Appeals
480 N.E.2d 589 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1985)
Bowers v. Board of Appeals of Marshfield
448 N.E.2d 1293 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1983)
County Commissioners v. Conservation Commission
405 N.E.2d 637 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1980)
Perini Corp. v. Building Inspector of North Andover
385 N.E.2d 1035 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1979)
Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children v. Boston Redevelopment Authority
353 N.E.2d 778 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1976)
Blakeley v. Gorin
313 N.E.2d 903 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1974)
Hallenborg v. Town Clerk of Billerica
275 N.E.2d 525 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1971)
Holbrook v. Board of Selectmen
238 N.E.2d 366 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1968)
Omartian v. Mayor of Springfield
238 N.E.2d 48 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1968)
Cullen v. Building Inspector of North Attleborough
234 N.E.2d 727 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1968)
Commonwealth v. Leonard
227 N.E.2d 721 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 N.E.2d 602, 348 Mass. 107, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-on-the-hill-inc-v-massachusetts-turnpike-authority-mass-1964.