¶1The St. of 1799, e. 31, § 5, and the city ordinance of 1850, imposing penalties for making and maintaining bow-windows or other projections into the streets of Boston, are manifestly intended for the benefit of the public, and not to confer distinct rights on individual citizens or owners of property. The plaintiffs do not allege that they have any easement or right of light and air across the front of the defendant’s house, and could not have, except by grant or agreement intended for their benefit. *219Keats v. Hugo, ante, 204. Paine v. Boston, 4 Allen, 168. Jewel v. Lee, 14 Allen, 145. In the absence of any such grant or agreement, neither the interference with the plaintiffs’ prospect, nor the general diminution of the value of their estate, by the building of the window, affords any ground for the interposition of a court of equity, unless it amounts to a nuisance, which cannot be seriously predicated of the injury alleged in the bill. Attorney General v. Doughty, 2 Ves. Sen. 453. Squire v. Campbell, 1 Myl. & Cr. 459. Jackson v. Newcastle, 3 De G., J. & S. 275. Butt v. Imperial Gas Co. L. R. 2 Ch. 158. The demurrer must therefore be sustained, and the Bill dismissed, with costs.
115 Mass. 217
Jenks v. Williams
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided June 18, 1874
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1874-06-18
Bill ir equity against Jacob L. Williams, the occupant of a house on Mount Vernon Street, in Boston, adjoining a house in said street, owned by the. plaintiffs, alleging that the defendant was about to construct a bow-window upon the front of his house, projecting before said front more than one foot, in violation of the St. of 1799, c. 31, § 5,* and the ordinances of the city of Boston of 1850 ;* that said bow-window would obstruct the view from the windows of the…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-06-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 1955
1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →