Boston and Maine Railroad v. Cate
| Decision Date | 05 January 1926 |
| Parties | BOSTON AND MAINE RAILROAD v. PHILIP T. CATE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
November 16, 1925.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., BRALEY, PIERCE WAIT, & SANDERSON, JJ.
Motor Vehicle Buses, License. Equity Jurisdiction, To restrain unlawful operation of motor buses. Equity Pleading and Practice Amendment. Constitutional Law, Interstate commerce, Police power.
It is proper to permit a bill, brought in June, 1925, to restrain violation of G.L.c. 159, Sections 45, 46, to be amended by consent of the parties after the filing of a master's report and the enactment of St. 1925, c.
280, to bring it within the terms of that statute so that a decision of the case may rest upon the law and facts existing at the time of the filing of the final decree. One, operating motor buses in numerous cities and towns in this
Commonwealth for the carriage of passengers for hire in such manner as to afford a means of transportation similar to that afforded by a street railway company by indiscriminately receiving passengers along the route on which the vehicle is operated or may be running, and for transporting passengers for hire between fixed and regular termini, cannot avoid compliance with the requirements of G.L.c. 159, Sections
45-48 B; St. 1925, c. 280, Sections 1, 2, by extending his route beyond Lowell in this Commonwealth to Nashua in the State of New Hampshire and issuing tickets designed to indicate interstate transportation.
Following Barrows v. Farnum's Stage Lines, Inc., ante, 240.
A railroad corporation, conducting its business of being a common carrier under numerous franchises granted by this Commonwealth, may maintain a suit in equity to restrain the operation of motor buses in the circumstances above described where it appears that such operation in the main parallels its tracks, at the farthest being only a few miles
distant. Following New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v.
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on June 9, 1925, and afterwards amended, seeking to restrain the defendant from operating any motor vehicle on any public way for the carriage of passengers for hire as a business between Boston and Lowell and intermediate points, unless and until the defendant shall have obtained a valid license therefor from the city council of every city and the selectmen of every town in or through which such motor vehicle is operated.
The suit was referred to a master. The master filed his report on September 11, 1925. Material facts found by him are described in the opinion. On September 16, 1925, by consent of the parties, the bill was amended by including allegations to bring it within St. 1925, c. 280, which had become effective on August 1, 1925.
No exceptions to the master's report were filed, and by order of Dubuque, J., an interlocutory decree was entered confirming it. The judge then reserved the suit upon the pleadings and the master's report for determination by this court.
J.M. O'Donoghue, for the plaintiff. J.P. Feeney & T.H. Mahony, for the defendant, submitted a brief.
The plaintiff is a corporation operating lines of railroad for the transportation of passengers between Boston and all cities and many towns north of Boston within the Commonwealth including Lowell and the States of New Hampshire and Maine. It conducts this business of being a common carrier under numerous franchises granted by this Commonwealth. It seeks by this suit in equity to restrain the defendant by injunction from operating any motor vehicles on any public way for the carriage of passengers for hire as a business between Boston and Lowell and intermediate cities and towns, unless and until he shall comply with the provisions of St. 1925, c. 280, G.L.c. 159, Sections 45-49. It does not seek to restrain the carriage of interstate passengers by the defendant, but only such passengers as are during their entire journey within the territorial limits of this Commonwealth.
The bill was amended to bring it within the terms of St. 1925, c. 280, and both parties have argued it on the footing of that statute. There is no objection to that course. Thus the decision will rest upon the law and facts existing at the time of the final decree. Day v. Mills, 213 Mass. 585. Hanscom v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co. 220 Mass. 1 , 9.
The case was referred to a master, whose report contains a full finding of all the facts. The defendant from June 4, 1925, until about July 4, 1925, operated a so called bus line over the public ways between Lowell and Boston, carrying passengers for hire. Fixed stopping places are established for the buses, now six in number, of large size and capable of carrying from twenty-four to thirty-two passengers each. The routes of travel over the public ways are fixed. On or about July 4 1925, the defendant changed his plan of business and since that time has operated buses from Nashua in the State of New Hampshire to Brockton in this Commonwealth, but still with fixed routes and stopping places running through Lowell and Boston. Over the entire route between...
To continue reading
Request your trial