TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Custy v. City of Lowell

Joseph H. Custy v. City of Lowell

Custy v. City of Lowell, 117 Mass. 78 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 14, 1875
Judges
Gray
Citations
117 Mass. 781875 Mass. LEXIS 157
Cited by 14
Headnotes
The Superior Court has no jurisdiction of an application for a jury under the Gen. Sts. c. 48, § 6, made more than three months after notice of an assessment upon the petitioner’s estate by the mayor and aldermen of a city for a proportionate part of the expense of constructing a sewer by which the estate is benefited, although the one month’s notice in writing to the city required by the statute is given within the three months; and such want of jurisdiction may be taken advantage of at any time before judgment.
Summary
Petition to the Superior Court, filed October 28, 1873, for leave to enter an appeal from an assessment upon the petitioner’s estate made July 21,1873, by the mayor and aldermen of Lowell, of a proportionate part of the expense of the construction of a sewer in South Street in that city; and alleging that on September 23, 1873, the petitioner gave the said mayor and -aldermen one month’s notice in writing of Ms intention to appeal. In the Superior Court the petition was dismissed, and the petitioner appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gray, C. J.

The application of the petitioner for a jury was required to be made within three months from the time when he received notice of the assessment of which he complains. Gen. Sts. c. 48, § 6. After the expiration of that period, the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of his application, and the want of jurisdiction might be taken advantage of at any time before judgment. Palmer v. Dayton, 4 Cush. 270 . Eddy’s case, 6 Cush. 28 . Eaton v. Framingham, Ib. 245. Elder v. Dwight Manuf. Co. 4 Gray, 201 . Riley v. Lowell, ante, 76.

Judgment dismissing petition affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1883–1884: 21887–1888: 11893–1894: 11897–1898: 11899–1900: 11901–1902: 11903–1904: 11907–1908: 21909–1910: 11919–1920: 11933–1934: 11939–1940: 118832026peak 1883 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. National Bank of Commerce v. City of New Bedford56 N.E. 288 (Mass. 1900)
  2. Donnelly v. Montague24 N.E.2d 864 (Mass. 1940)
  3. Sawyer v. City of Boston11 N.E. 711 (Mass. 1887)
  4. Lancy v. City of Boston70 N.E. 88 (Mass. 1904)
  5. Cheney v. Assessors of the Town of Dover91 N.E. 1005 (Mass. 1910)
  6. Partridge v. Inhabitants of Arlington79 N.E. 812 (Mass. 1907)

Most recent

  1. Donnelly v. Montague24 N.E.2d 864 (Mass. 1940)
  2. City of Worcester v. County Commissioners of Worcester186 N.E. 775 (Mass. 1933)
  3. Locomobile Co. of America v. Commonwealth232 Mass. 16 (1919)
  4. Cheney v. Assessors of the Town of Dover91 N.E. 1005 (Mass. 1910)
  5. Corcoran v. Higgins80 N.E. 231 (Mass. 1907)
  6. Partridge v. Inhabitants of Arlington79 N.E. 812 (Mass. 1907)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list