Blodgett v. Worcester Consol. St. Ry. Co.

Citation192 Mass. 106,78 N.E. 222
PartiesBLODGETT et al. v. WORCESTER CONSOL. ST. RY. CO.
Decision Date17 May 1906
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

192 Mass. 106
78 N.E. 222

BLODGETT et al.
v.
WORCESTER CONSOL. ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

May 17, 1906.


Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Worcester County; Jas. M. Barker, Judge.

Bill by Walter H. Blodgett and others, mayor and aldermen of Worcester, to compel the Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Company to keep in repair certain surface material in streets in such city. Case reserved for full court. Judgment for plaintiffs.

1. STREET RAILROADS-RIGHTS IN STREETS-REPAIR-LIABILITY-ESTOPPEL.

That a street railway company complied with an order requiring it to lay and maintain paving within certain streets according to certain specifications did not estop it to thereafter contest the legality of the order.

2. STREET RAILROADS-ORDER-CONSTRUCTION.

An order required a street railway company to lay and maintain paving in certain streets and to assume the expense of paving where the streets were unpaved, either for the full width of two streets and between the track, or between the tracks and for a limited distance outside the rails as to the remaining streets, and also to repave with the same material the streets already paved, the surface of which would have to be removed in the construction of the road. Held, that the general provision requiring the company to lay and maintain paving was not limited to paving only, and did not exclude the cost of subsequent maintenance.

3. STREET RAILROADS-STATUTES-CONSTRUCTION.

Pub. St. c. 113, s 7, relating to street railway locations authorized the board of aldermen and selectmen of towns to grant original locations to street railway companies subject to such ‘restrictions' as they deemed the public interest required. Held, that the word ‘restrictions,’ as so used, was a legal equivalent of ‘conditions,’ and therefore authorized the board to impose limitations on the full and unqualified enjoyment of the right to use the streets so granted.

4. STREET RAILROADS-STATUTES-OBLIGATION TO PAVE AND MAINTAIN-POWER OF ALDERMEN.

Pub. St. c. 113, s 7, provides that the board of aldermen of a city or the selectmen of a town may grant an order for the location of a street railway ‘under such restrictions as they deem the interests of the public may require,’ and section 32 provides that every street railway shall keep in repair the paving, upper planking, or other surface material of the portions of the streets occupied by its tracks and in addition a space 18 inches on each side of the portion so occupied, etc. Held, that section 7 should be treated as supplementary to section 32 and as conferring jurisdiction on the board of aldermen to impose a condition on the grant of a street railway location that the railway company shall pave and maintain the street to an extent greater than that prescribed in section 32.

5. STREET RAILROADS-STATUTES-REPEAL-EFFECT.

Pub. St. 1898, p. 748, c. 578, s 26, repealing chapter 113, s 7, with reference to the granting of street railway locations by cities, declared (section 11, p. 742) that street railway companies shall remain subject to all legal obligations imposed in their original grants, and reference was again made in section 13 (page 743), which ratified and confirmed all previous locations which were given validity as if granted under the repealing act. Held, that the repeal of section 7 did not terminate the obligation of a company to pave and maintain streets imposed by a location grant previously made under the repealed section.

Arthur [192 Mass. 111]P. Rugg, for petitioners.

Warren & Garfield and Clement R. Lamson, for respondent.


BRALEY, J.

The demurrer admits the substantial allegations of the bill, by which without rehearsing its entire statutory title the respondent is described as a corporation duly organized to operate, and actually operating a system of street railways a part of which is located within the municipal limits of the city of Worcester. By purchase it has lawfully succeeded to all the rights and franchises formerly granted to the Worcester, Leicester & Spencer Street Railway Company, one of its predecessors in title. Sp. Laws Mass. 1893, p. 976, c. 338; St...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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