1871-04-24 Trustee Special Committee Report, Coolidge Ave Claims, 2021.019.001

The special committee to whom were referred the applications of H. W. Muzzey and J. G. Coolidge for payment of damages caused to their estates by grading Coolidge Avenue by the City of Cambridge in 1869 submit the following report.

In the year 1862, a claim made that this Corporation was bound to grade and repair the avenue was referred to Messrs. C. P. Curtis and E. S. Rand, and from their full examination and report we find, that the fee of the avenue is in this Corporation, that it was laid out as a private way in 1830 and has since been open to public travel. It is not a public way except by dedication. Since 1846 no way can be made public unless laid out by the public authorities. As the Corporation as lately as 1848 exercised its power of granting rights in the way it seems clear it has never become a public way by dedication.

The original agreement between [Businesses?] and Josiah Coolidge provided that this way should be kept open and unobstructed, and that said Coolidge his heirs and assign should at all times have free

ingress and regress to and from his adjoining land into said way. H. W. Muzzey, J. G. Coolidge, the petitioners and the City of Cambridge, all claim rights in the way as assigns of J. Coolidge.

In 1868 the way being out of repair the question of its improvement was brought before the Board as follows.

"Mr Cheever having made a statement that the "City of Cambridge contemplated the improvement of the "grade of Coolidge Avenue, it was "Voted that Messrs Cheever and Norcross be a committee "to arrange with the City of Cambridge for the payment "of $250 by this Corporation when said grading shall have "been contemplated to the satisfaction of the Committee."

In 1869 the grading was completed which has caused the injuries complained.

The grade of the sidewalk at the entrance to Mr. Muzzey's Estate (then owned by Mr Lawrence) was reduced about three feet, and no support being provided for the wall on the line of the estate, it has since fallen, and besides rebuilding the wall a considerable expense has been incurred in reducing the grade of his roadway to the new grade of the Avenue. A similar but less reduction

in grade was made in front of Mr Coolidge's Estate. He claims that a bank wall is necessary in front of his land and that access to his premises has been rendered more difficiult.

Both parties base their claim against this Corporation upon the allegation, that the City of Cambridge in making the changes of grade acted as the licensee or agent of the Corporation as owner of the fee.

If this were the fact the Committee are not prepared to admit that any claim for damages could be maintained. The repairs upon the avenue have improved its condition for travel, and have so far been advantageous to the abuttors. They must sooner or later have been made. But the Committee are clearly of opinion that this Corporation did not make the City of Cambridge its agent and is not responsible for its acts. The vote was simply an agreement to contribute to the expense in case the work was done satisfactorily, to its Committee.

Before the work was completed, complaints were made by Mr Coolidge and it appears from the correspondence on file that the Mayor of Cambridge was distinctly informed by Mr Norcross that the Corporation would not undertake to arrange with Mr Coolidge, would do

nothing about the proposed changes, but that the City must take the whole responsibility

On Nov. 9. 1869 after the Coolidge claim had been presented to the Board, it was voted, "That the Treasurer be authorized to pay $250 to the City "of Cambridge, for the improvements made upon Coolidge "Avenue, upon receiving from said City a sufficient "bond of indemnity against any claim for damages "by the abuttors, or a satisfactory release from said "abuttors."

Several demands have since been made for the payment of this money, but the terms of the vote not having been complied with nothing has been paid. The terms of the vote seem to imply that the committee were satisfied with the work done.

While we are clearly of opinion that no claim can be maintained against the Corporation for the alleged damages, deeming it important to preserve harmonious relations with our neighbors and the City of Cambridge, the Committee recommend that the facts of the case may be presented to the City Authorities of Cambridge, in the hope that a settle

ment just and equitable to all parties may thus be reached.

C. F. Choate for Committee