Bowditch v. Boston
101 U.S. 16, 25 L. Ed. 980, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1877 (1880)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a property owner to recover compensation under a statute for property demolished to prevent the spread of a fire, the demolition order must strictly comply with the specific procedural requirements mandated by that statute.
Facts:
- On November 9-10, 1872, a major fire occurred in the City of Boston.
- Charles H. Hall was the lessee of a building that lay in the path of the advancing fire.
- The building contained Hall's valuable personal property, including fixtures, merchandise, and tools.
- To prevent the fire from spreading, the building Hall occupied was blown up and destroyed.
- This demolition successfully stopped the progress of the fire, but destroyed Hall's leasehold and personal property.
- A Massachusetts statute and a Boston city ordinance permitted such demolitions and provided for compensation to the owner, but required that the demolition be ordered by the 'joint order' of three fire engineers, including the chief engineer if present.
- The chief engineer was present at the fire but did not consult with two other engineers to jointly order the destruction of Hall's specific building.
- Instead, the chief engineer gave general written authority to other individuals to blow up buildings as their judgment directed, and one such individual, General Burt, decided on his own to destroy Hall's building.
Procedural Posture:
- The assignee for the estate of Charles H. Hall sued the City of Boston in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the judge directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, the City of Boston.
- The plaintiff, as plaintiff in error, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Circuit Court.
- The Circuit Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
- The plaintiff then sued out a writ of error to bring the case before the Supreme Court of the United States for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner have a right to statutory compensation from a city for the demolition of their property to stop a fire when the demolition was not ordered by the specific public officials acting jointly as required by the governing statute and ordinance?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Swayne
No. A property owner is not entitled to statutory compensation from a city for the demolition of their property to stop a fire if the specific procedures mandated by the authorizing statute were not followed. The common law recognizes a right to destroy property out of public necessity, such as to stop a fire, without any corresponding right for the owner to receive compensation. The Massachusetts statute created a new remedy for owners that did not exist at common law; therefore, a claimant must demonstrate that their case falls 'clearly within the statute.' The court adopted the reasoning of the Massachusetts high court in Ruggles v. Inhabitants of Nantucket, holding that the statute requires the 'united judgment' of the three designated officials, acting together, to determine the necessity of destroying a particular building. A general delegation of authority is insufficient. The evidence conclusively showed that no three engineers jointly consulted or ordered the destruction of Hall's specific building. The chief engineer's attempt to delegate this joint discretionary authority was a 'nullity.' Because the statutory prerequisites for a valid demolition order were not met, the city is not liable for compensation.
Analysis:
This case establishes the principle that statutes creating a waiver of sovereign immunity or providing a remedy against the government in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed. It clarifies that when a law vests a specific, joint, discretionary authority in a group of public officials, that authority cannot be delegated to a single individual. This decision reinforces the need for government agents to adhere precisely to statutory procedures, particularly in emergency situations, if their actions are to be considered legally valid and trigger statutory obligations like compensation. It has lasting implications for administrative law, eminent domain, and the exercise of police powers, requiring strict procedural compliance for government actions that infringe on private property rights.
