Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890

Inhabitants of Quincy v. Kennard

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided June 19, 1890 · Holmes

151 Mass. 563; 24 N.E. 860; 1890 Mass. LEXIS 266

Cases that cite this one

37 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Cutrona v. Mayor of Wilmington (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1924)
Inhabitants of Swansea v. Pivo (Mass. 1929)
Goldsmith v. City of Indianapolis (Ind. 1935)
Boyd v. City of Sierra Madre (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
Hood v. Melrose (Cal. Ct. App. 1914)
State v. Taubert (Minn. 1914)
Ex Parte Broussard (Tex. Crim. App. 1913)
Board of Health of Woburn v. Sousa (Mass. 1959)
Commonwealth v. Sargent (Mass. 1953)
Butler v. Town of East Bridgewater (Mass. 1953)
City of Waltham v. Mignosa (Mass. 1951)
City of Malden v. Flynn (Mass. 1945)
Town of Lincoln v. Murphy (Mass. 1943)
City of Revere v. Blaustein (Mass. 1943)
Mitchell v. City of Roswell (N.M. 1941)
Commonwealth v. Kimball (Mass. 1938)
Town of Lexington v. Miskell (Mass. 1927)
Bizzell Ex Rel. Bizzell v. Board of Aldermen (N.C. 1926)
Creaghan v. M. C.C. of Balt. (Md. 1918)
Creaghah v. Mayor of Baltimore (Md. 1918)
People ex rel. Reuther v. Sisson (New York Supreme Court 1917)
Biffer v. City of Chicago (Ill. 1917)
Burke v. Board of Health (Mass. 1914)
Commonwealth v. McGann (Mass. 1913)
State v. . Rice (N.C. 1912)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Holmes, J.

It is admitted that the board of health had authority to forbid the exercise of the employment of keeping swine in the town of Quincy. Pub. Sts. c. 80, § 84. Commonwealth v. Young, 135 Mass. 526. Taunton v. Taylor, 116 Mass. 254. But it is argued that the order passed was invalid, because the prohibition contained in it was qualified by the words “ without a permit in writing first obtained from the board of health.” We are at a loss to see how it affects the validity of the order, *564that the board expressly reserved to themselves a power to do what they could have done even if the prohibition had been absolute, or how the defendants are put in a worse position by the order contemplating the possibility that the board of health may grant them a written permit, than if it had excluded that possibility. The parties having agreed that the case should be finally disposed of by the decision upon the demurrer, an injunction will issue.

Demurrer overruled. Injunction to issue.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.