Young v. City of Boston

104 Mass. 95
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 104 Mass. 95 (Young v. City of Boston) 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
Young v. City of Boston, 104 Mass. 95 (Mass. 1870).

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

By the St. of 1846, c. 167, entitled “An act for supplying the city of Boston with pure water,” the city was authorized by and through the agency of three commissioners to construct its now existing aqueduct. It was to be maintained and regulated under the authority of the city council, and at the expense of the city; and one of its principal objects was to "supply the occupants of tenements in the city.

[104]*104The plaintiff occupies a tenement in a model lodging-house so called; and a special provision is made in the city ordinances for this class of tenements. A section of the ordinances cited, establishing the rates of charges for the use of the water in such houses, provides that, “ for each tenement having water fixtures within the same,” the rate shall be “ three dollars annually; and for each tenement not having water fixtures within the same, but taking the water from general fixtures used in common with other tenements, two dollars annually.” The word “tenement” is obviously used to describe such part of the house as is separately occupied by a single family, in contradistinction from the whole house. The water board and registrar are to be governed by this ordinance. Parker v. Boston, 1 Allen, 361. And no more authority is conferred upon them by the ordinance to compel the occupants of a tenement to take the water in common with the occupants of the other tenements in the house, than to compel the occupants of all the separate houses in a block or a street to take the water in common with each other; it being agreed that the plaintiff’s tenement has separate fixtures, and he not using, nor desiring to use, the water in common with others. Decree for the plaintiff.

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

Related

Framingham Homes Inc. v. Dietz
7 Mass. App. Div. 82 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1942)
Brand v. Water Commissioners
242 Mass. 223 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Millville Improvement Co. v. Millville Water Co.
113 A. 516 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1921)
Waldron v. International Water Co.
112 A. 219 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1921)
Eutaw Ice, Water & Power Co. v. McGee
81 So. 354 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)
Woodruff v. Mayor of East Orange
64 A. 466 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1906)
Roberts v. Lynn Ice Co.
73 N.E. 523 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Wilson v. Tallahassee Water Works Co.
47 Fla. 351 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Richmond Natural Gas Co. v. Clawson
51 L.R.A. 744 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1900)
Belding Bros. & Co. v. Sewer Commissioners of Northampton
58 N.E. 156 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Turner v. Revere Water Co.
40 L.R.A. 657 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Kelsey v. Board of Fire & Water Commissioners
37 L.R.A. 675 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)
Jenkins v. Columbia Land & Improvement Co.
43 P. 328 (Washington Supreme Court, 1896)
Rose v. King
49 Ohio St. (N.S.) 213 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1892)
Commonwealth v. Hersey
11 N.E. 116 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
State v. Mayor of Jersey City
45 N.J.L. 246 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1883)
Dayton v. Quigley
29 N.J. Eq. 77 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 Mass. 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-city-of-boston-mass-1870.