Case Name: Alden H. Sears vs. Mayor and Aldermen of Worcester
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1902-01-03
Citations: 180 Mass. 288
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alden H. Sears vs. Mayor and Aldermen of Worcester.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 180
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
Alden H. Sears vs. Mayor and Aldermen of Worcester.
Worcester.
November 20, 1901.
January 3, 1902.
Present: Holmes, C. J., Knowlton, Lathbop, Hammond, & Loring, JJ.
Certiorari. De minimis non curat lex.
A writ of certiorari will not be issued to quash the levying of a betterment assessment on the ground that it exceeds one half of the adjudged betterment in the case specified by the amount of half a cent.
Petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the mayor and aldermen of the city of Worcester in levying certain betterment assessments on land of the petitioner for the widening of West Boylston Street in Worcester, filed May 12, 1900.
The case was heard by Holmes, C. J., who, at the request.of the petitioner, reported it for the full court as follows:
“The petitioner wished to offer evidence that West Boylston street was not substantially completed, but I ruled that in this proceeding I could not go behind the record set out in the answer. I also ruled that the assessment was levied in time, and that it was not void because it exceeded one half of the adjudged benefit in the case specified by one half of one cent, and ordered the petition dismissed.”
The petitioner alleged exceptions, of which the only one argued related to the ruling last stated.
G. W. Wood O. H. Wood, for the petitioner.
A. P. Pugg, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Lathrop, J.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the mayor and aldermen of the city of Worcester in making an ' assessment for street betterments, under the Pub. Sts. c. 51, § 1.
While several questions were presented to the Chief Justice of this court, and are before us, on his report, the only one argued by the petitioner is an exception to the ruling that the assessment was not void because it exceeded one half of the ad judged benefit by one half of a cent. The other questions we regard as waived.
We are of opinion that the ruling was right. As was said in ,Stone v. Boston, 2 Met. 220, 228: " A petition for certiorari is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. It is not to be granted for the mere purpose of enabling a party to avoid the proceedings of an inferior tribunal, for technical errors. It must appear that manifest injustice has been done to the petitioner." See also Pickford v. Mayor & Aldermen of Lynn, 98 Mass. 491, 496; Farmington River Water Power Co. v. County Commissioners, 112 Mass. 206, 212; Blake v. County Commissioners, 114 Mass. 583, 586; Lowell v. County Commissioners, 146 Mass. 403, 412; Haven v. County Commissioners, 155 Mass. 467 ; Devlin v. Dalton, 171 Mass. 338, 341.
It cannot be said in this case that manifest injustice has been done the petitioner. In the language of Chief Justice Gray, in Workman v. Worcester, 118 Mass. 168, 175: "A case can hardly be imagined which would more imperatively call for the application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex."
Petition dismissed.