Boston & M.R.R. v. Cate

Citation150 N.E. 210,254 Mass. 248
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
Decision Date05 January 1926
PartiesBOSTON & M. R. R. v. CATE.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Case Reserved from Superior Court, Middlesex County; H. A. Dubuque, Judge.

Suit in equity by the Boston & Maine Railroad against Philip T. Cate to restrain defendant from operating motor vehicles for carriage of passengers for hire as a business between points within state. Case reserved on pleadings and master's report. Injunction ordered.J. M. O'Donoghue, of Lowell, for plaintiff.

J. P. Feeney, of Boston, and T. H. Mahony, of New York City, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

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, amending G. L. c. 159, §§ 45 to 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.

[1] 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, 100 N. E. 1113;Hanscom v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co., 220 Mass, 1, 9, 107 N. E. 426, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 145.

[2][3] 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 busses, now six in number, of large size and capable of carrying from twenty-five to thiry-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 busses 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 Boston and the New Hampshire state line, the lines of travel of the motor vehicles in the main parallel tracks of the plaintiff, at the farthest, being only a few miles distant. A regular daily time-table of busses is maintained, with offices for the sale of tickets. The form of tickets, designed to indicate interstate transportation, is of no consequence so far as purely intrastate traffic is concerned. The law looks at the substance of the thing done. The master has found that the defendant is operating his motor vehicles in numerouscities 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 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; and that he is doing this without a license from the city council of the cities or the selectmen of the towns through which the motor vehicles are run; and that he has not deposited any bond conditioned to pay judgments for injuries or damages to person or property; that he has not complied with certain ordinances of Boston and Lowell; that he has not obtained any certificate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Haseltoim, County Sol. v. Interstate Stage Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1926
    ...record here have recently been considered by the Massachusetts state court. Barrows v. Farnum's Stage Lines, supra; Boston & Maine Railroad v. Gate (Mass.) 150 N. E. 210; Boston & Maine Railroad v. Hart (Mass.) 150 N. E. 212; Commonwealth v. Potter. (Mass.) 150 N. E. 213. All of these cases......
  • Barrows v. Farnum's Stage Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1926
  • State v. Martin
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1930
    ... ... avoided. See Barrows v. Farnum's Stage Lines, ... 254 Mass. 240 (150 N.E. 206); Boston & M. Railroad v ... Cate, 254 Mass. 248 (150 N.E. 210). In the use of the ... highways, carriers ... ...
  • State ex rel. Bd. of R.R. Com'rs v. Martin
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1930
    ...supervision may be exercised and evasion avoided. See Barrows v. Farnum's Stage Lines, 254 Mass. 240, 150 N. E. 206;Boston & M. R. R. v. Cate, 254 Mass. 248, 150 N. E. 210. In the use of the highways carriers may properly be subjected to reasonable nondiscriminatory regulations in the inter......
  • 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