Attorney Gen. v. New York, N.H.&H.R. Co.
Decision Date | 01 March 1909 |
Citation | 201 Mass. 370,87 N.E. 621 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.
Action by the Attorney General, on the relation of William D. T. Trefry, against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, to restrain defendant from holding certain corporate stock. From a decree entered by a single justice on a rescript from the full court, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
J. H. Benton, for appellant.
Dana Malone, Atty. Gen., and Frederic B. Greenhalge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a formal decree entered by a single justice in pursuance of a rescript from the full court. The decree is printed in connection with the former decision of this case in 198 Mass., at page 433, 84 N. E. 737. The only question open on this appeal is whether the decree properly conforms to the rescript. Lincoln v. Eaton, 132 Mass. 63-69;Nashua & Lowell Railroad Corporation v. Boston & Lowell Railroad Corporation, 169 Mass. 157-162, 47 N. E. 606;Humphrey v. Baker, 103 U. S. 736, 26 L. Ed. 456;Sewall v. Sewall, 130 Mass. 201;Attorney General v. Williams, 140 Mass. 329-336, 2 N. E. 80,3 N. E. 214, 54 Am. Rep. 468.
The rescript ordering a ‘decree for the informant’ was sent on May 8, 1908. On June 9th the defendant filed a motion setting forth that it had ‘parted with whatever interest in or control of any of the shares of the capital stock of any of the street railway corporations mentioned in the information it may have had,’ except its interest in the shares of two corporations named, and moved ‘that it be allowed to prove these facts upon the hearing of any motion by the Attorney General for a final decree.’ This was not in the form of a motion for leave to file a supplemental answer, and it set up no such specific facts as should be set up if a party wishes to open a case for a new trial by reason of new matters of defense which have arisen since the trial and decision of the issues previously raised. Indeed, it does not state that the defendant ever had any interest in the stock in question, but refers only to ‘whatever interest or control * * * it may have had.’ Such a motion was addressed to the discretion of the court, and the discretion was rightly exercised in denying it. The only relief asked for by the informant was an injunction compelling the defendant to comply with the statute by ceasing to hold or control, directly or indirectly, the stock referred to in the information. The decree was entered as of May 8th, the date of the rescript, and it applies to the facts as they then appeared of record. If any question ever...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carilli v. Hersey
...as if there had been no appeal.’ In re Boston, Petitioner, 223 Mass. 36, 37, 111 N.E. 412, 413;Attorney General v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 201 Mass. 370, 371, 87 N.E. 621;Crowley v. Holdsworth, 267 Mass. 13, 16, 165 N.E. 884;Cole v. Holton, 274 Mass. 238, 174 N.E. 468;D......
-
Carilli v. Hersey
... ... 72 , 75. Day v ... Mills, 213 Mass. 585 , 587. New York Central & ... Hudson River Railroad v. T. Stuart & Son Co. 260 Mass ... it did in Attorney General v. Williams, 178 Mass ... 330 , 335, Lambert v. Board of Appeals ... ...
-
Boruchoff v. Ayvasian
... ... Quinn, ... 320 Mass. 687, 690. Attorney General v. New York, New Haven ... & Hartford Railroad, 201 Mass. 370, ... 1933, c. 144. See also 2 Op ... Atty. Gen ... ...
-
Boruchoff v. Ayvasian
...and the grievance to be remedied.’ Billerica v. Quinn, 320 Mass. 687, 690, 71 N.E.2d 235, 237.Attorney General v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 201 Mass. 370, 372, 87 N.E. 621.Yankee Network, Inc. v. Gibbs, 295 Mass. 56, 61, 3 N.E.2d 228. We construe the decree as ordering the fi......