The decision as printed

Supreme Judicial Court · from CourtListener · released Jun 26, 1875 · 4 pages · 209 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

JUNE, 187 138
for of lien after much theirs the their had made protection they
v. Parrott their as before. 104 Mass. 254. agent, Thayer Dwight,
circumstances, these the to Under the if the promise pay freight,
Parrott, the to was not for the mere would deliver plaintiffs goods
Parrott, of the debt of but to obtain a transfer purpose paying
interest, of the in had an in order that Parrott which goods, they
sell them and devote the of the sale to the proceeds might pay-
benefit ment of their debt. the a enured to By delivery, directly
The falls within the rule in the defendants. case stated repeated
has, of this court: that when the in consider- decisions plaintiff
defendant, lien, the some ation of the relinquished by promise
debt, or for his and transferred that benefit advantage securing
interest, defendant, it is new benefit, some to the a or equivalent
re- between the the and contract parties, although independent
is the of another is sult that the of debt incidentally payment
3 and effected. Nelson v. Met. 396. Curtis Boynton, indirectly
Scoville, Brown, 488. v. 1 391. v. 5 Cush. Alger Gray, Jeph-
Allen, Blanchard, Hunt, Allen, 2 Dexter v. 11 erson v. 417.
Groodnow, Foster, v. 98 Mass. 296. Ames v. 106 365. Furbish
; v. Burr. also 3 1886- Mass. 400. See Williams Castling Leper,
East, ; 204; Aubert, Edwards 6 M. & Fitz- 2 325- v. S. Kelly, v.
Dressler, B. 374. v. C. S.) 7 (N. gerald
correct, that, at the trial if the should find The was ruling jury
to the if the defendants plaintiffs that the promised pay freight,
same, the and the their lien for plaintiffs, release relying would
Parrott, the so, the to did and delivered the goods on promise,
not in writing. was binding, though promise
overruled. Exceptions 
Winthrop. Inhabitants of vs. Blaisdell James 
JJ., Endicott, 26, Ames & absent. 1875. June March 12. Suffolk. 
damages laying taken for the for land the assessment of petition for maintain a To
legally laid out. way was must show that the way, petitioner the of a town out
1871, 158, c. of filed by pursuance in of the St. a town chosen Road commissioners bound, 1, showing the plan proposed a street on a of office June in the town clerk’s
way proposed the the estates included within of various and admeasurements aries

V- WINTHROP. BLAISDELL 139 
filed in the same office a on signed June 3, not them; and, papel but they by
taken from A. feet at .06 ‘•'Amount of land signed 10,104 as follows: them, by
it the voted to the and was June town street, On 10, accept foot, $606.24.” per
legally not laid out in that the was accordance constructed. afterwards Held, way
A. to the Court for c. and that a the Gen. Sts. 65, with 43, § petition by Superior
taking damages the of his land could not be main- his sustained jury a to assess by
tained. 
for to assess to the a Petition Court jury Superior damages
land the to out a the of lay for by respondent highway taking
in the of to Pleasant Street town Win- from Street Winthrop
out of the Trial denied the The way. respondent laying throp.
in as Bacon, J., a bill of substance before who allowed exceptions
follows:
10, 1872, in on June A held in town was Winthrop meeting
31, 1872, of a dated the fol- warrant containing pursuance May
2, if the “Article To see town will articles: a accept lowing
commissioners, the road from as laid out Street Winthrop street by
street. Street, or of said Article 3. To to Pleasant see part any
out the road will build the street laid commission- if the town by
thereof, and raise to for the same.” ers, or money pay any part “ the for a that the town street as The town voted accept plan
commissioners, road from to Pleasant laid out the Winthrop by
” “ Street; the road be instructed to build and that commissioners
them, the as laid out from Street to Pleasant street Winthrop by
as the Street town.” accepted by “ that entitled Plan of a It a street plan proposed appeared
and in which showed the boundaries admeasurements Winthrop,” 
n of various estates included within the proposed way, including
indorsement, the and the petitioner’s, bearing following signed
“ the clerk: filed in town Town of the office of by Winthrop;
June, 1872," the town clerk this the first of filed the was day by
commissioners, them, road but not in the officeof the signed by
clerk, 1, 1872; 3,1872, town on June and that on June a paper,
filed, of the is which a was Albert Rich- following signed copy, by
ardson and David “Amount of land from taken James Floyd:
Blaisdell, 10,104 feet, foot, at .06 $606.24.” per
witness, The called town clerk as a who testified plaintiff th§
that Richardson and were the road commissioners for the Floyd
town of and the in that was the Winthrop, plan produced town
aforesaid, and to the them inhab- meeting verbally explained by

JUNE, 1875. 140
ai tides. about to act on the aforesaid The as were itants they
in fact road was constructed.
aforesaid, and filed as ruled that the The plan paper, . judge
the of not a sufficient with the requirement were compliance
The statute; for and ordered a verdict the respondent. petitioner
exceptions. alleged
for A. the Semenway, petitioner.
Train, JR. for the O. respondent. 
Devens, J. In order that the should maintain this plaintiff
for him to a out of it is show the legal laying petition necessary
his in the construction of which land was taken. town way
town, commissioners been chosen the Road had having by they
in and duties vested law the the select- powers ordinarily by
out and men and of as to surveyors highways laying altering
1871, laid out or streets. of e. No town altered St. 158. way
a of the them can be and allowed at town meeting by accepted
“ out or for such unless such alteration with the purpose, laying
is filed in the officeof the boundaries and admeasurements town
43, such Gen. Sts. c. clerk seven at least before meeting.” days
§65.
but intended to not mere This is a lay formality, provision
condition, which with down an upon compliance indispensable
to uses of this bf public the property right appropriating private
can alone be exercised. v. Swamp- lawfully description Jeffries
scott, Mass. 535. 105
cannot be considered the road commissioners The filed plan by
Even if it set forth of the statute. the as requirements satisfying
the road and of the admeasurements of land boundaries and the
of the the com- taken, it did not bear to be signatures proposed
of in- the certificate missioners, nor did it even filing, appear by
It bore clerk, filed them.1 no that it was the town by dorsed by
them, from document it was an authentic proceeding that evidence
whip}' and admeasure- to the boundaries indicated that according
the and it reported as laid down proposed laying ments upon they
of a out town way.
a filed there was report by In v. Swampscott, supra, Jeffries was not to a which filed selectmen, but without reference plan the
that, not ; held such plan and it was having not it was intelligible
no had been before the town meeting, report filed seven been days

V. MAYO. EATON 141
the of filed, to the statute and authorize taking sufficient satisfy
filed; was Here no whatever the landowner’s property. report
authenticated, filed, it but even if had been a was properly plan
of to a for want reference setting it report was unintelligible any
there- out the road commissioners in forth a by conformity laying
with.
road defect the the Nor was this cured paper signed by by
of the land taken the and value commissioners stating quantity
the had no reference to them from the It plan, petitioner. by
fact, ; mere or road laid out them and the to no alluded way by
of land in and that which the stated this that paper, quantity
in- and the as to the plan upon belonging petitioner appeared road, are the line of what is there laid as a cluded within down
similar, cannot connect the as to make two so papers together
of a out of is such a a road as required. laying report
overruled. Exceptions 
Joseph Mayo. B. Eaton & others vs. J. 
10, 28, Devens, JJ., 1874. June 1875. & Nov. Wells Suffolk.
absent. 
“ “ following plaintiff: delivered the letter to The defendant the Let” M. have what
months, Held, goods may pay he on four want and he will as usual.” that this was
that, guaranty; being ambiguity meaning not a and there no paper, of in the there
surrounding no occasion to resort to was the or the relations of circumstances the
parties. 
an Contract contained in the follow- upon alleged guaranty
Gloucester, 5, letter to the dated delivered ing plaintiffs, May
“ 1870, Eaton, and the defendant: Messrs. signed by Wellington
Co. Let C. he & S. what want on four have Mayo goods may
months, and he will as usual.” pay
Court, in At the trial the J,, before a clerk Superior Dewey,
of the testified 5, that about C. S. called plaintiffs May Mayo
bill Boston; and selected a of at the store in that goods plaintiffs’
not then ; were to him delivered he to they that declined sell
; him the unless he 7, a that on he goods brought guaranty May
the said and the brought paper, to the amount thereupon goods,