noting, in interpreting earlier version of § 11, that it may reflect legislative judgment that "[because] the population of Boston is far greater than that of any other city or town in Massachusetts, the number of frivolous or vexatious appeals from the board of appeal of Boston would be considerably higher than" elsewhere
How later courts described this case
- noting, in interpreting earlier version of § 11, that it may reflect legislative judgment that "[because] the population of Boston is far greater than that of any other city or town in Massachusetts, the number of frivolous or vexatious appeals from the board of appeal of Boston would be considerably higher than" elsewhere
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Whittemore, J.
dissenting. The statute in terms makes it a condition of an appeal in Boston that there be a bond indemnifying the person in whose favor the decision was rendered “from all damages and costs which he . . . may sustain.” So far as this imposes a bond for court costs, I agree that it may be sustainable for Boston only by the principle referred to in the opinion. It appears to me in any event, however, arbitrary and unreasonable classification to give a right only to persons in Boston to have substantive damages in the event that an appeal is not found meritorious. The bond is plainly in an amount far beyond any court costs that could be recoverable; it follows, I submit, that it has been ordered under an unconstitutional aspect of the statute.