Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/294/294mass258.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:11:41+00:00

Document:
CITY OF BOSTON vs. WHITE FUEL CORPORATION.
License, For the storage and sale of petroleum products. Res Judicata. Certiorari.
A certificate of use and occupancy, purported to be given under the provisions of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 148, § 13, cannot extend the rights granted by a license issued under that statute for a building not built and in use on the date of the expiration of the license.
Failure of a licensee under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 148, § 13, to build and use the licensed structure before the expiration of the license on the following April 30 was not excused by pending appeals of abutters to the fire marshal, by litigation, or by the risk involved in making large expenditures on an uncertainty.
A decision by this court upon a writ of certiorari, ordering quashed action by the street commissioners of Boston revoking a license issued under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 148, § 13, did not bar on the ground of res judicata a suit in equity by the city of Boston to restrain the licensee from operating under such license after its expiration.
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on July 17, 1935.
The suit was heard on an agreed statement of facts by Collins, J., who made an order for a decree dismissing the bill. Final decree was entered by order of Gray, J., in accordance with the first order. The plaintiff appealed.
W. F. Henneberry, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for the plaintiff.
E. A. Counihan, Jr., (G. A. McLaughlin with him,) for the defendant.
since that time by the actual use by the defendant as occupant, "pursuant to the authority granted by said license," of a tank having a total capacity of thirteen thousand five hundred thirteen barrels, and by the annual registration with the fire commissioner of a certificate of such use and occupancy as provided by the statute. On March 1, 1933, the licensing authority duly voted to grant to the defendant a second license for the "keeping, storage and sale of Range and Fuel Oil 80,000 bbls. add'l in tanks in the Building or Structure at 888 East First Street . . . ." When this second license was granted, the only structure on the premises was the tank having a capacity of thirteen thousand five hundred thirteen barrels in which the defendant already had the right to store twelve thousand barrels. No new structure was erected after the granting of the second license until March, 1935, when the defendant installed a new one thousand gallon tank. No further licenses have been granted. The defendant, however, has endeavored to keep alive the right granted by the second license by tendering each year to the fire commissioner a certificate of use and occupancy under that license.
The defendant now contends that it has a right to construct and to use for storage new tankage to the total capacity of the eighty thousand additional barrels allowed to it by the second license. The plaintiff seeks to restrain such use. It is agreed that the sole issue is whether the defendant may use for the keeping, storage or sale of range and fuel oils any structure at 888 East First Street other than the tank having a capacity of thirteen thousand five hundred thirteen barrels which was in existence when the second license was granted.
while such use continues, file for registration . . . a certificate reciting such use and occupancy . . . ... The second license expired on April 30, 1933. Although it has been held that a license may be granted under this section to apply to structures not yet erected, Morrison v. Selectmen of Weymouth, 279 Mass. 486, 492, no certificate of use and occupancy can extend the rights granted beyond the April 30 next following the date of issue as to any structure not built by that time. A structure not yet built has not been "once used under a license," nor does "such use" continue at the time of filing the certificate. Every licensee takes the chance, either of being able to use and occupy his structure for the purposes of the license before the next succeeding thirtieth day of April or of being able to renew his license as of that date.
upon an investor in a new enterprise, that argument should be urged elsewhere. See Burgess v. Mayor & Aldermen of Brockton, 235 Mass. 95, 101; Newcomb v. Board of Aldermen of Holyoke, 271 Mass. 565.
as to all such discretionary Matters which might have been, but were not, called to the court's attention. Nor would such claim of loss of rights have been a true defence to the petition for certiorari in the sense that the respondents therein could set it up and demand a decision upon it as of right. A party is bound by the result of previous litigation only as to matters which were in fact decided and as to matters which as of right he was entitled to have decided. Newburyport Institution for Savings v. Puffer, 201 Mass. 41, 46. Sandler v. Silk, 292 Mass. 493, 498. The matter of the loss by lapse of time of the rights conferred by the second license does not fall within either category.
Under the agreement of the parties, we are not called upon to determine whether the second license may not have had the effect of enlarging the amount of oil allowed to be stored in the existing tank having a capacity of thirteen thousand five hundred thirteen barrels from the twelve thousand barrels allowed by the first license to the full capacity of the tank, and whether the certificates of use and occupancy which have been tendered have kept that right alive for the defendant's benefit.
The final decree must be reversed, and a decree must be entered for the plaintiff for the relief prayed for, except as to the tank last mentioned.

References: § 13
 § 13
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.