Home WILLIAM G. BRODEUR & another vs. CHARLES PALM & another.

344 Mass. 760

June 1, 1962

Decree affirmed. This is an appeal from a final decree dismissing the plaintiffs' bill for injunctive relief and for the assessment of damages for injury allegedly caused to their property by surface water originating from largely vacant land known as "Crow Hill." The judge took a view and made findings of fact. He found that "[u]pon all the evidence it cannot be determined that there was any damage caused either by the action or non-action" of the defendants or "that there was any diversion or collection of water in any manner" by the defendants "causing water to be deposited upon the land" of the plaintiffs. The judge also found that the defendants "have not changed the course of the water either by direct action or non-action." We have examined the record and conclude that the judge was justified in making these findings. Murach v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. 339 Mass. 184 , 188.

Home ASSESSORS OF QUINCY vs. BOSTON SAND & GRAVEL CO. (and two companion cases of the same name).

344 Mass. 760

June 1, 1962

The abatements ordered by the board are to stand. The taxpayer is to have costs of these appeals. Boston Sand & Gravel Co. (taxpayer), contending that the taxes assessed on its real estate were excessive for the years 1958, 1959, and 1960, sought abatements. The taxpayer asserted that a large portion of its property is machinery which is exempted by G. L. c. 59, Section 5, Sixteenth. Abatements were granted by the Appellate Tax Board for all three years. The board of assessors appealed. From certain rulings of the tax board, the taxpayer also appealed. The sole issue raised by the assessors is whether the tax board erred in receiving testimony by the taxpayer's expert witness on the value of the property, in view of the fact that the expert admitted that he had given his opinion without including in his valuation certain structures on the land. No requests for rulings were made by the assessors on this point, and there is nothing in the record which indicates that the tax board adopted the view of the expert that certain buildings erected to house machinery are not to be included in the valuation of the real estate. Indeed, it would appear that the tax board rejected that view, for its valuation was substantially higher than that given by the taxpayer's expert. At all events, the assessors have failed to show that the tax board's decision was tainted by error of law. That evidence was received as to the value of a portion of the property was not such error. In view of this conclusion it is not necessary to consider the taxpayer's appeals.

Home BOSTON SAND & GRAVEL CO. vs. ASSESSORS OF QUINCY (and two companion cases of the same name).

344 Mass. 760

June 1, 1962

The taxpayer's appeals are dismissed. See "brief statement of the grounds and reasons of the decision" in Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Sand & Gravel Co. decided herewith.

Home CHARLES E. CUNNINGHAM, executor, vs. TYYNE MARIE MOKSU & another.

344 Mass. 760

June 1, 1962

This is a petition brought by an executor asking for a determination of ownership of a joint bank account

Page 761

in the Bass River Savings Bank which was placed by the decedent (Moksu) in the name of himself and his wife jointly; he also asked for a determination of ownership in $1,000 in United States currency. The judge made a report of the material facts found by him; the evidence is not reported. The judge found that Moksu "did not intend to make a valid inter vivos gift to his wife . . . and that therefore said account is part of the residue of his estate." He also found that the currency was jointly owned by Moksu and his wife and became her property upon Moksu's death. From a decree in accordance with these findings, the wife appealed. The sole issue is whether the decree is supported by the facts found. "The facts so reported must stand except to the extent that they are inferences from subsidiary findings or are inconsistent with each other or with the pleadings." Carilli Constr. Co. v. John Basile & Co. Inc. 317 Mass. 726 , 727. Perceiving nothing in the subsidiary findings of the judge which vitiates his ultimate conclusion that there was no intent on the part of Moksu to make an inter vivos gift of a joint interest in the savings account (see Corkum v. Salvation Army of Mass. Inc. 340 Mass. 165 ), we are of opinion that this conclusion must stand.