Boston & M.R.R. v. Hart

• Decision Date: 05 January 1926
• Parties: BOSTON & M. R. R. v. HART.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

254 Mass. 253

150 N.E. 212

BOSTON & M. R. R.

v.HART.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 5, 1926.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; David Lourie, Judge.

Suit in equity by the Boston & Maine Railroad against Franklin L. Hart, to restrain defendant from operating motor busses for carriage of passengers in competition with plaintiff between cities within the commonwealth. Interlocutory decree confirmed master's report, and case was reported. Permanent injunction to issue.

1. Automobiles k77-Operation of motor busses engaged in interstate transportation held violative of license statute.

Where motor busses engaged in interstate operation made regular stops in cities within commonwealth, taking on and discharging passengers, had regular passenger tariff and timetable, operation thereof without license from cities or towns through which busses run without filing of bond held to show violation by operator of G. L. c. 159, ss 45, 46, as amended by St. 1925, c. 280.

2. Commerce k63-Requirement for license or permit held valid regulation of intrastate transactions.

Even though much the larger part of business of any person be interstate commerce, yet, if he engages in local or domestic carriage, requirement for license or permit is valid regulation respecting such intrastate transactions.

Thornton Alexander and Richard W. Hall, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

James H. Walsh, Jr., of Fitchburg, for respondent.

RUGG, C. J.

[1] This is a suit in equity whereby injunction is sought to restrain the defendant from operating motor busses for the carriage of passengers in competition with the plaintiff between Boston and Fitchburg in this commonwealth. The case was referred to a master, who has made a full report of the facts. These may be summarily stated so far as concern the questions of law to be decided. The plaintiff is a corporation owning and operating under franchises from the commonwealth lines of railroad with many passenger trains for the transportation of passengers between Boston through intermediate cities and towns and Fitchburg and Winchendon in this commonwealth. The defendant, beginning in March, 1925, has operated a line of motor busses between Boston in this commonwealth and Keene in the state of New Hampshire for the carriage of passengers for hire over public ways by regular routes paralleling the tracks of the plaintiff throughout the distance between Boston and Fitchburg. The busses make regular stops in all cities and towns along their route for taking on and discharging passengers. He has a regular passenger tariff and time-table, maintains a ticket office in Boston, and authorized ticket agents in other places. The defendant also maintains a line of busses between Boston through Fitchburg to Albany in the state of New York, which, during such periods, such as Saturday or Sunday nights, occasionally carry between Boston and Fitchburg the overflow of passengers from other motor vehicles. The defendant has had no licenses at any time for carrying on his business in any of the cities or towns through which his busses run, such as were and are required by G. L. c. 159, § 45, both before and after its amendment by St. 1925, c. 280. The defendant has filed no bond to pay specified damages as required by the city ordinance of Boston and G. L. c. 159, § 46. The defendant competes directly with the plaintiff for the carriage of passengers. He is operating motor vehicles for the carriage of passengers for hire over the public highways between fixed and regular termini and in a manner similar to street railways. That operation has caused a direct and substantial loss of revenue to the plaintiff.

All these facts show a plain violation by the defendant of the provisions of G. L. c. 159, §§ 45, 46, both before and after its amendment by St....