Case ID: mass_166/html/0161-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Holmes, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nathan S. Brock vs. John P. Dore & another. Gertrude M. Maynard vs. Same.
    Suffolk.
    March 18, 1896.
    May 22, 1896.
    Present: Field, C. J., Allen, Holmes, Morton, & Barker, JJ.
    
      Certiorari — Widening of Street — Sufficiency of Boundaries.
    
    The limits stated in a vote of the street commissioners of the city of Boston to take land for the widening of Brighton Avenue, under St. 1895, c. 268, were “ from Union Square in said Brighton to the junction of said avenue with Commonwealth Avenue.” The name “ Union Square ” was applied to an open space at the junction of Brighton Avenue and Cambridge Street* so called, but did not designate a locality with definite boundaries. Before reaching Cambridge Street the southerly line of Brighton Avenue curved away from the northerly line, and the land in question was on the southerly curve. Held, on a petition for a writ of certiorari by the owner of the land to quash the proceedings, that the statute, dealing as it did with half a mile of street, meant to deal with the whole of that street between two definite termini well known to the public, and that “ Union Square ” was perfectly definite and well known if taken to indicate a part of Cambridge Street limited by the side lines of Cambridge Street extended.
    Two petitions for writs of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the street commissioners of the city of Boston relative to widening and constructing Brighton Avenue, under the provisions of St. 1895, c. 268. The cases were heard on the petitions, the answers, the returns of the street commissioners incorporated therein, and a plan accompanying said returns, of which a copy is given on the foregoing page.
    The cases were, at the request of the petitioners, reported by Barker, J., for the consideration of the full court. If the decision of the court denying the petitions was correct, it was to be affirmed; otherwise such order was to be entered as law and justice might require. The facts appear in the opinion.
    
      M. F. Dickinson, Jr., & H. R. Bailey, for the petitioners.
    
      T. M. Babson, for the respondents.
   Holmes, J.

These are petitions for writs of certiorari against the street commissioners of Boston, on the ground that the petitioners’ land, which the commissioners have voted to take under St. 1895, c. 268, authorizing them to widen Brighton Avenue, is outside the limits mentioned in the act. The limits are “ from Union Square in said Brighton to the junction of said avenue with Commonwealth Avenue,” and the only question is on the meaning of the words “ from Union Square.” That name is applied to the open space at the junction of Brighton Avenue and Cambridge Street, but does not designate a locality with definite boundaries. Before reaching Cambridge Street the southerly line of Brighton Avenue curves away from the northerly line. The petitioners’ land is on this southerly curve, and therefore, as they say, within Union Square, and outside the respondents’ power.

On the whole, we are driven to the opposite view. We think that the act, dealing as it does with half a mile of street, means to deal with the whole of that street between two definite termini, well known to the -public. Union Square is perfectly definite and well known if it be taken to indicate a part' of Cambridge Street limited by the side lines of Cambridge Street extended, but becomes vague and insufficient if we give it any. other meaning. If the words “ Cambridge Street ” are substituted for Union Square, the petitioners’ land is within the bounds of the act.

Petitions dismissed.