Opinion
December 7, 1899.
March 1, 1900.
Present: HOLMES, C.J., KNOWLTON, BARKER, HAMMOND, LORING, JJ.
A forge in which a fire is maintained for the purpose of carrying on the ordinary business of a blacksmith is not a furnace within the meaning of St. 1892, c. 419, §§ 116, 117.
BILL IN EQUITY, to restrain the conveyance, maintenance, and occupation of a building until the same should be made to conform to the provisions of St. 1892, c. 419, §§ 116, 117, forbidding among other things the placing of a boiler or furnace in any building in the city of Boston without a permit. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after the bill was dismissed, to this court, on appeal, upon agreed facts, the nature of which appears in the opinion.
S.M. Child, for the plaintiff.
No counsel appeared for the defendant.
The only question raised in this case is whether the word "furnace" as used in St. 1892, c. 419, §§ 116 and 117, includes a forge in which a fire is maintained for the purpose of carrying on the ordinary business of a blacksmith.
The difference between a forge and a furnace, so far as the ordinary use of those words in connection with metal work is concerned, is this: A furnace is used to melt ores in making metals, or to melt metals in working them; a forge is used to heat metals to hammer them into a desired form, not to melt them. It is evident that the Legislature thought that a fire used to melt ores and metals was dangerous, and that a fire used to heat them was not dangerous; and for that reason it forbade the erection of a furnace, but did not forbid the erection of a forge. Decree dismissing bill affirmed.