An instructive case bearing upon this argument is that of _Dingley_ v. _Boston_, 100 Mass. 544. For the purpose of draining and grading up a part of the Back Bay district, the Massachusetts legislature authorized the city of Boston to take land within a certain area, and provided that the title should vest in the city. The contemplated use, although extensive, was merely temporary; when the land was filled and the surface raised to a higher grade, the purpose for which it was taken would have been accomplished. The Supreme Court, nevertheless, holds that it was the object of the statute to authorize the taking of a fee simple absolute, and that after the filling had been completed the title remained in the city, subject to such use or disposition as the authorities might deem expedient. The use being public, it could not be said that the taking of a fee simple was any the less for public use than the taking of a smaller estate would have been; the legislature was sole judge of the expediency of taking one or the other. The court speaks as follows: “The act provides that the city government may first take the land, and thereby transfer to the city a title in fee simple, without the consent of the owners. It is contended that, as the only object of the act is to abate a nuisance, the act ought only to have granted the power to occupy the land temporarily until the object of the act should be effected, and it should then be restored to the owners, with a provision that the benefit done to the land should be applied in offset to the damages. It is true that the raising of the grade does not require an occupation of the land for a great length of time. When this work is completed the nuisance will be abated, and the land will be in a condition to be occupied by private persons. But its condition will be greatly changed; almost as much so as raising flats into upland. The former surface will be deeply buried under the earth that will have been brought upon it, and the changed condition is to be perpetual. If the old property is restored, the new property which has been annexed to it must go with it. This would be very unjust to the city, who have been compelled to incur the great expense of destroying the nuisance, unless the owner were required to make a reasonable compensation, which might be far beyond the amount of the damages to which he would be entitled.