Attorney General v. City of Boston
Citation | 123 Mass. 460 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Decision Date | 19 December 1877 |
Parties | Attorney General v. City of Boston & others. John A. Lowell & others v. Same |
[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Two applications for a writ of mandamus to the city of Boston and to the board of directors for the East Boston ferries the first by information of the attorney general, and the second by petition of ten citizens and taxpayers of Boston, and each containing the following allegations:
"That on February 11, 1870, the city council passed an ordinance called 'An ordinance to establish a board of directors for the East Boston ferries,' providing for the election annually of a board of directors, who should hold their respective places until others should be elected to fill them, and giving said directors the general care and management of the East Boston ferries, and for that purpose giving them all the powers vested in the city council, so far as the same could be legally delegated; and further providing for the establishment of rates of toll, to be based on an income sufficient to cover the current expenses of maintaining the ferries, and the payment of the interest on the ferry scrip; and the petitioner asks leave to refer to said ordinance as printed among the ordinances of said city." Ordinances of Boston, (ed. 1876.) 293.
That on March 24, 1870, the board of aldermen fixed the rates of toll to be collected according to a schedule annexed, (in which the ferriage for each foot passenger was fixed at two cents,) "and the said tolls so fixed are now the lawfully established tolls which said city council and said ferry directors are bound by law to collect;" and that the present board of ferry directors consists of seven persons, whose names were given.
The information and the petition each prayed for an alternative writ of mandamus to the city of Boston, and to the board of directors for the East Boston ferries, commanding them to continue, after January 1, 1878, to collect the tolls established as aforesaid, or such other tolls as may be hereafter established by the board of aldermen of said city, according to law, or show cause why they should not do so.
The city of Boston and the board of directors for the East Boston ferries filed general demurrers to the information and petition respectively, and the cases were thereupon reserved by Morton, J., for the determination of the full court.
Alternative writ of mandamus issued.
J. G. Abbott & E. R. Hoar, for the city of Boston.
W. G. Russell, (G. Putnam, Jr., with him,) for the attorney general and the petitioners.
These are applications for a writ of mandamus to compel the city of Boston (which in 1870 purchased and now holds the franchise and property of the East Boston Ferry Company) and the board of directors for the East Boston ferries (to which the city council has committed the general care and management of the ferries) to continue to collect the tolls established by the board of aldermen upon those ferries. The respondents have filed general demurrers, thereby admitting all the facts alleged; and the prayer for a writ of mandamus to the board of directors having been waived at the argument, the matter to be determined is whether, upon the facts alleged and admitted, such a writ should be issued to the city of Boston.
The questions presented are of such public interest and importance, that they have, with the assent of counsel, been considered by all the judges, and the opinion now announced is the unanimous judgment of the whole court.
The main question is of the validity of the order passed by the city council on July 30, 1877, in the following terms: "Ordered, that on and after the first day of January, 1878, the tolls on the East Boston ferries be abolished, and the said ferries be run free to the public travel."
By the St. of 1869, c. 155, § 1, the city council was authorized to purchase the franchise, boats and other property of the East Boston Ferry Company, and to cause the ferry to be maintained "in such manner and upon such rates of ferriage as the board of aldermen of said city shall from time to time judge the best interests of said city to require, excepting only as hereinafter provided."
The subsequent sections of this statute offered to the choice of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Butcher v. Rice
... ... and Taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and of the City and County of Philadelphia, for themselves and for any other Taxpayers ... population as may be' as enjoined on the General Assembly ... by Article II, Section 16, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, ... which they swore to support and obey. Indeed, the Attorney ... General of Pennsylvania in his brief in the Court below, thus ... Mass. 503, 505, 85 N.E. 870; Attorney General v. City of ... Boston, 123 Mass. 460, 479; Rea v. Board of Aldermen ... of City of Everett, ... ...
-
Butcher v. Rice
...902; Cox v. Segee, 206 Mass. 380, 92 N.E. 620; Moneyweight Scale Co. v. McBride, 199 Mass. 503, 505, 85 N.E. 870; Attorney General v. City of Boston, 123 Mass. 460, 479; Rea v. Board of Aldermen of City of Everett, 217 Mass. 427, 105 N.E. 618; Luce v. Board of Examiners of Dukes County, 153......
-
Commonwealth v. Town of Hudson
...have ordered towns as well as cities to perform affirmative acts. Frost v. Inhabitants of Belmont, 6 Allen 152, 157, 164; Attorney General v. Boston, 123 Mass. 460;McCarthy v. Street Commissioners of Boston, 188 Mass. 338, 74 N.E. 659;Brown v. Inhabitants of Peabody, 228 Mass. 52, 57, 116 N......
-
Morrissey v. State Ballot Law Comm'n
...interested in the execution of the laws.’ The court also quoted from the opinion in the Brewster case the statement in Attorney General v. Boston, 123 Mass. 460, 479, that ‘There is a great weight of American authority in favor of the doctrine that any private person may move, without the i......