Issue: Under Massachusetts law, what is the definition of the term ‘within or without the premises?’
|Area of Law:||Real Estate Law|
|Keywords:||Within or without the premises; Definition|
|Cited Cases:||273 N.E.2d 874; 441 N.E.2d 786; 14 Mass. App. Ct. 650|
The research failed to reveal any cases referencing the precise language “within or without the premises.” It appears from the cases that do employ “within or without” or similar terminology that the reference is simply to locations or other units either inside or outside the stated location or unit. See Babcock v. Labor Relations Comm’n, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 650, 652, 441 N.E.2d 786 (1982) (stating that “in response to complaints from within and without the department,” consumption of alcoholic beverages was prohibited on company time and premises) (emphasis added); Commonwealth v. Colella, 360 Mass. 144, 149, 273 N.E.2d 874 (1971) (explaining that accused was not a trespasser because he “never entered any building on the premises, either within or without the ‘curtilage’“) (emphasis added); Knight v. Luce, 116 Mass. 586 (1875) (noting that defendant’s servant cleared “the defendant’s grounds along the road within and without the boundary of the road in front of the defendant’s premises”) (emphasis added); Green v. Putnam, 62 Mass. 21 (1851) (stating that the defendant took stones from the premises in question for various purposes, “to be used within and without the limits of Worcester in similar ways”) (emphasis added).