Allen v. Manchester

Citation111 A.2d 817,99 N.H. 388
PartiesMildred ALLEN et al. v. MANCHESTER et al.
Decision Date25 February 1955
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Paul E. Nourie and Bartram C. Branch, Manchester, for plaintiffs.

J. Francis Roche, City Sol., Manchester, for defendants.

DUNCAN, Justice.

In Piasecny v. City of Manchester, 82 N.H. 458, 136 A. 357, it was said that 'municipal playgrounds * * * are public institutions open to enjoyment by all the people from which the city * * * receives no special advantage.' The same may be said of the municipal golf course maintained by the defendant city. See Harkinson v. City of Manchester, 90 N.H. 554, 5 A.2d 721. It was created for public recreational purposes, and is supported by public funds. Like a park or playground, it is 'for the enjoyment of the general public at large', Strachan v. Mayor, 326 Mass. 659, 662, 96 N.E.2d 392, 394, and its use may be regulated to secure that end. People v. Ribinovich, 171 Misc. 569, 13 N.Y.S.2d 135, 138.

The enabling legislation under which the golf course is conducted authorizes the city to establish reasonable tolls for the use of 'fields' managed by it. Laws 1927, c. 244, § 3. The defendant board was established 'to carry out the provisions' of the enabling act. Id. § 4. It has 'full charge and supervision' over the golf course, the expenditure of appropriations made for the purpose, and authority 'to establish such rules and regulations as they may deem proper for the efficient supervision and management of said recreation * * * fields.' § 6. The statute thus permits the adoption of regulations designed to make the golf course available for recreation and 'enjoyment by all people', consistently with efficient, safe, and orderly operation. Non-discriminatory rules and regulations calculated to further this object are clearly within the grant of authority to the board.

The real issue is whether the regulation of which the plaintiffs complain is discriminatory, so as to deprive them of their constitutional right to the equal protection of the laws. Their evidence tended to show that they and other women similarly affected by the regulation are regularly employed on week days, and by the regulation are deprived of an opportunity to play golf during hours likely to be available to them, and considered by them most suitable, for that purpose. Men golfers, on the other hand, are permitted to play during the hours in question. Such classification according to sex, they urge, is invalid.

The validity of the regulation depends upon whether the curtailment of the plaintiffs' rights or privileges can be justified as a reasonable measure in furtherance of the public interest, or the general welfare. See Cloutier v. State Milk Control Board, 92 N.H. 199, 205, 206, 28 A.2d 554. The plaintiffs urge that the regulation is invalid because the trustees were motivated only by a desire 'to secure more income from the course'; but granting that such a purpose was a factor in the action taken which would not of itself justify the regulation, it was not necessarily invalid upon that account. 'The passage of public ordinances, by-laws, rules and regulations is a form of enacting legislation. The general rule is that if a law is valid when its maker is actuated by right motives, it is equally so when he is not.' Coleman v. School District, 87 N.H. 465, 471, 183 A. 586, 589.

Under the State Constitution, as under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 'persons similarly situated are guaranteed similarity of treatment.' Welch Co. v. State, 89 N.H. 428, 431, 199 A. 886, 889, 120 A.L.R. 282, affirmed 306 U.S. 79, 59 S.Ct. 438, 83 L.Ed. 500. 'Classification to be valid must reasonably promote some proper object of public welfare or interest and may not be sustained when the selection and grouping is so arbitrary as to serve no useful purpose of a public nature.' Opinion of the Justices, 85 N.H. 562, 564, 154 A. 217, 221. See also Woolf v. Fuller, 87 N.H. 64, 72, 174 A. 193, 94 A.L.R. 1067; Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 321, 197 A. 701, 115 A.L.R. 1367. It must rest upon some ground of difference having a 'fair and substantial relation' to the object of the legislation. State v. Moore, 91 N.H. 16, 22, 13 A.2d 143, 148. See also Chronicle & Gazette Publishing Co. v. Attorney General, 94 N.H. 148, 151, 48 A.2d 478, 168 A.L.R. 879; Richardson v. Beattie, 98 N.H. 71, 76, 95 A.2d 122. Not every legislative classification is within the ban of the constitutional limitations, Welch Co. v. State, supra, and a distinction is not arbitrary 'if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, and existence of that state of facts at the time law was enacted must be assumed'. State v. Moore, supra [91 N.H. 16, 13 A.2d 144].

Within these principles, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Lilley, 2017-0116
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • February 8, 2019
    ...course during certain hours did not violate the New Hampshire Constitution's equal protection guarantee. See Allen v. Manchester, 99 N.H. 388, 390-92, 111 A.2d 817 (1955). We reasoned that because it was not "plainly mistaken or arbitrary" that "women golfers, on the average, progress about......
  • Carson v. Maurer, s. 80-017
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • December 31, 1980
    ...quoting F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415, 40 S.Ct. 560, 561, 64 L.Ed. 989 (1920); see Allen v. Manchester, 99 N.H. 388, 390-91, 111 A.2d 817, 819 (1955); State v. Moore, 91 N.H. 16, 22, 13 A.2d 143, 148 We recognize that recently the United States Supreme Court has res......
  • New Hampshire Bankers Association v. Nelson, Civ. A. No. 3355.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of New Hampshire
    • January 19, 1972
    ...790. But here the provisions of the Federal State Constitution invoked have the same general scope and meaning.1 Allen v. Manchester, 99 N.H. 388, 390, 111 A.2d 817 (1955); Welch Co. v. State, 89 N.H. 428, 431, 199 A. 886 (1938); State v. Pennoyer, 65 N.H. 113, 115, 18 A. 878 (1889). In the......
  • Opinion of the Justices, 6631
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • May 14, 1973
    ...with due process, legislation such as this must bear a reasonable relation to a permissible legislative objective. Allen v. Manchester, 99 N.H. 388, 111 A.2d 817 (1955); West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 391, 57 S.Ct. 578, 581-582, 81 L.Ed. 703, 708 (1936). We must assume for t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT