28 
NORTH SHORE BREEZE 
WEST BEACH CASE 
The Opinion handed down in the Case. 
Decision not unlooked 
for, though it means a Great Deal to the Residents 
of Beverly Farms 
The decision of the Supreme court 
against the West Beach Corporation 
in its case against the Preston heirs, 
reported exclusively in last week’s 
BREEZE, was read with much interest 
by the Farms people. 
The decision is naturally of much 
concern to the people of the Farms as 
to just what it means and the results. 
The whole thing in a nutshell is that 
within a month or six weeks the bath 
houses on the westerly end of the 
beach will have to be removed for all 
time. No sand can be taken from 
this portion and the question as to 
whether boating, bathing and resting 
in the sand is. permitted, will have to 
be determined when the decree is 
drawn up, but it now appears that 
none of the above will be allowed. 
There is, however, no doubt in the 
matter ofa dividing fence or wall,— 
that none such can be erected, and 
the Corporation will still have the 
right to pass and repass over the 
property and to collect driftwood and 
sea-weed. In other words the terms 
of the agreement made between Mr. 
Preston and the Corporation in 1856, 
will have to be carried out by both 
parties. 
We had hoped to be able to print 
some pictures of the beach in this 
issue, but were disappointed in the 
matter. We do publish, however, the 
opinion handed down on the case, 
which was as follows: 
George B. Preston et al. 
vs. West Beach Corporation 
Knowlton, C. J. This bill is brought 
to restrain the defendant from erect- 
ing bathhouses and other structures 
on the plaintiffs’ beach at Beverly 
Farms. The case was heard at great 
length, first before an auditor and then 
before a jury, upon eleven issues 
which were framed for trial by a jury. 
It involves an investigation of titles 
beginning with a grant from the town 
of Salem in 1635, and extending to 
deeds made only a few years ago. 
Questions were raised as to the validity 
and effect of two acts of incorporation 
of proprietors, one under a general 
law, and the other under a special 
statute. A contract was made between 
the defendant and the plaintiffs’ pre- 
decessor in title, which the defendant 
seeks to avoid on the ground that it 
was ultra vires. Both parties rely 
upon prescription, as well as convey- 
ances to establish a title that shall be 
available in support of their respective 
contentions. 
The plaintiffs own about an acre 
and a half of land near the sea bya 
title that is unquestioned. They con- 
tend that their absolute title by deed 
extends to high water mark, that in 
addition to the tenancy in common by 
deed in the shore and the adjacent 
flats to low water mark, they have ac- 
quired rights in them by prescription. 
The defendant contends that the 
plaintiffs’ boundary next the sea is a 
bank separating the upland from the 
sand of the beach below at a distance 
of several rods from high water mark. 
A great many requests for rulings 
were made by the defendant, and nu- 
merous important questions of law 
have been argued betore us, some of 
which it will be unnecessary to decide. 
The decision of the court will turn 
upon a few propositions, 
The parties have filed a stipulation 
that the plaintiffs are owners of an 
estate in fee in the disputed tract as 
tenants in common with others. As 
against a stranger to the title sucha 
share is sufficient to entitle them to 
the relief which they ask in this bill. 
We may therefore turn at once to the 
defendants’ claim of title. 
The defendant was incorporated 
under the. 5tae 852 cmp, cuaabic 
is a very peculiar act which incorpo- 
rates all the resident inhabitants of a 
certain territory, comprising most of 
two school districts in the town of 
Beverly, and which authorizes them 
to take and hold a described portion 
of the seashore, beach and flats at 
Beverly Farms. It puts upon them 
the burden of keeping in repair a cer- 
tain causeway across a creek and 
marsh, and provides that they “may 
use and occupy said described portion 
of seashore, beach and flats for the 
purpose of gathering drift stuff and 
sea-weed, and of boating and bathing, 
as said premises have heretofore been 
used and occupied by them and their 
predecessors.” It contains a require- 
ment that the legal voters, who are 
members of the corporation, shall be 
assessable a certain amount for the 
erection and maintenance of a stone 
wall at the causeway, and it makes 
regulations as to the removal of sand 
and gravel from the beach, and the 
gatherings of drift stuff and sea-weed. 
It declares that “nothing contained 
in this act shall be so construed as 
to. . . impair the legal rights of 
any person.” 
Although the defendant relies 
somewhat upon a incorporation of 
proprietors under the general law in 
1840, claiming the same property, we 
consider this of no further signifi- 
cance than to show that this beach 
had previously been treated almost 
like common property. The defen- 
dant corporation has derived nothing 
from the former corporation. It 
seems to have been supposed that 
there was a change, or a contention 
effecting this land in reference to the 
maintenance of the causeway accord- 
ing to the terms of the original grant 
from the town of Salem. But it ap- 
pears that so far as the land now in 
dispute is concerned this was a mis- 
take. The change or contention was 
in a grant which did not include this 
part of the beach, although it included 
a part of that described in the statute. 
What was the effect of this statute ? 
It assumed to give the corporation a 
possessory title in the beach, if it 
chose to take and hold it. The cor- 
poration, having been duly organized, 
undertook the work required of it in 
the repair of the causeway, and 
did it to the satisfaction of the select- 
men of the town. By a board of offi- 
cers regularly elected from year to 
year, it has attempted to manage and 
control the property described in the 
act. Considering the situation and 
nature of the real estate we think the 
defendant took it within the meaning 
WHY NO 
Look into our METHOD of 
Cleaning Carpets 
1+. ad Rugs... 
before you start to clean house? 
We think it will pay you. We not only 
tell _you how we clean them, but gladly 
SHOW YOU THE MACHINERY that 
does the work. We can take your carpets 
up one day, clean and relay them the next— 
to your satisfaction. 
Won’t you give us a trial ? 
FE. K. BANKS 
5 HALE ST., BEVERLY 
Telephone 154-3 
The Pickett Coal Co, 
(Established 1844) 
—— DEALERS:-IN —— 
Coal Wood 
ogeue 
Cement, Lime, SaAnp AND Harr 
Offices, 15 Water St. and 164 Cabot 
Cor. Milton St., 
BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS 
Telephones 
