Chandler v. R.R. Com'rs

• Citation: 141 Mass. 208,5 N.E. 509
• Parties: CHANDLER and others, Petitioners, etc., v. RAILROAD COM'RS and others.
• Decision Date: 26 February 1886
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

141 Mass. 208

5 N.E. 509

CHANDLER and others, Petitioners, etc.,

v.RAILROAD COM'RS and others.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Filed February 26, 1886.

Petition by the selectmen of the town of Brookline against the railroad commissioners of Massachusetts, and William Aspinwall, of said Brookline, for a writ of prohibition to restrain each and all of the respondents from in any way proceeding with an appeal, filed by the said Aspinwall, from the decree of the county commissioners of Norfolk county, ordering certain alterations in the Washington street bridge over the Boston & Albany Railroad in Brookline. On the eighth day of July, 1884, the selectmen of said Brookline presented to the board of county commissioners of said county of Norfolk a petition requesting said commissioners to make certain necessary alterations in the said Washington street bridge, and in the approaches thereto; the said Washington street being a highway in said Brookline. Said board of county commissioners took cognizance of said petition, and proceeded to hear the same; and upon the eighteenth day of February, 1885, made a decree ordering certain alterations in said bridge and its approaches. On February 27, 1885, the respondent Aspinwall filed in the office of the clerk of the courts of said county of Norfolk a written statement or notice of appeal, to the effect that he intended to appeal from said decree of the county commissioners, and on March 19, 1885, said Aspinwall filed in the office of the clerk of the said respondents the board of railroad commissioners of Massachusetts certain alleged reasons of appeal, setting forth that the said Aspinwall is an inhabitant and legal voter of said town; that he is a shareholder in the Aspinwall Land Company, a company whose capital stock consists largely of land in said Brookline; that a part of said land abuts upon said Washington street, and is of great taxable value; also that the petitioner is the owner of other land, and a house thereon, abutting on another street which connects directly with said Washington street, and forming with said Washington street the direct road from said house to the Brookline station of the Boston & Albany Railroad Company. The reasons for the appeal then set forth in detail the grounds upon which the appeal was based, alleging certain irregularities on the part of the proceedings of the county commissioners. Immediately after the filing of said reasons of appeal, and before any action had been taken thereon by said respondents the board of railroad commissioners, the selectmen of said Brookline filed a written motion to dismiss said appeal of said respondent Aspinwall for want of jurisdiction on the part of said railroad commissioners; but said commissioners refused to dismiss the appeal, and appointed a day for a hearing. The petitioners in the present proceeding alleged that the said Aspinwall was not a party to the proceedings wherein said decree of said county commissioners was rendered, in such manner as to entitle him to appeal from said decree of said county commissioners; that said Aspinwall was not aggrieved by said decree; and that his reasons of appeal set forth no facts showing him to be a party aggrieved. The answer of the railroad commissioners, respondents, among other things, alleged that the said Aspinwall was a party aggrieved, and that the prayer of the petitioners did not set forth any legal cause for the granting thereof. The case was heard, upon the petition and answer, by C. ALLEN, J., who reserved it for the consideration of the full court.E.R. Hoar and M. Williams, for petitioners.

T.H. Talbot and G.C. Hodges, for respondents.

FIELD, J.

The question is whether Mr. Aspinwall is a party aggrieved by the decision of the county commissioners, within the meaning of St.1882, c. 35, § 1. That section relates to proceedings under sections 129 and 138, c. 112, Pub.St. Section 129 implies that an application may be made to the county commissioners by the mayor and aldermen of a city, or the selectmen of a town, or the directors of a railroad corporation; and enacts “that the county commissioners shall, after due notice, hear all parties interested, and, if they decide that such alteration is necessary, shall prescribe the limits within which it shall be made, and shall forthwith notify their decision in the matter to the parties, and also to the board; and if the county commissioners decide that no alteration is necessary, the party making the application shall pay the costs thereof.” Section 130 provides for the taking of land or other property if the location of the highway or railroad or town way is changed, and gives a remedy to the owner. Section 131 provides for the appointment of a special commissioner to determine which party shall carry the decision of the county commissioners into effect, and which party shall pay the charges and expenses of making the alteration, the future charges of keeping the bridge and the approaches thereto in repair; the costs of the application to the county commissioners, and of the hearing before the commissioner; or the commissioner may apportion these charges, expenses, and costs. Section 132 provides for an application to the superior court, or a justice thereof, by the county commissioners, mayor and aldermen, selectmen or directors of the railroad, and that notice thereof shall be given “to the other parties interested.” Section 133 provides that “a party aggrieved by the award may, within fourteen days after the same is so returned, apply to the court for a jury to revise and determine any matter of fact found therein, and thereupon the court shall order a trial by jury to be had at the bar of the court after due notice to all parties interested in the matter of such award,” etc.; and by section 134 “the party designated for that duty, having carried into effect the decision of the county commissioners, may recover of any other party, in an action of contract, the proportion awarded to be paid by such other party, with interest.”

It is plain that, after the decision of the county commissioners, the only parties interested in the appointment of the commissioner and the subsequent proceedings are the railroad corporation, represented by the directors; the city or town, represented by the mayor and aldermen; or the selectmen and the county, represented by the county commissioners. By the Public Statutes the decision of the county commissioners upon the necessity of the alteration, and the manner in which it should he made, and the limits of it, is final. But St.1882, c. 135, gives to “any party aggrieved” by the decision of the county commissioners, or by their neglect or refusal to decide, an appeal to the board of railroad commissioners. The taxable inhabitants of the city, town, or county have no different interest in the subject-matter than in any other work for public purposes, the expense of which may be ordered to be borne by the city, town, or county. Mr. Aspinwall, as a taxable inhabitant of the town of Brookline, has no interest different in kind from the other taxable inhabitants of the town, and as an owner of land abutting on the highway has no interest different in kind from that of other abutters, or from that of the public generally, because no part of his land or property has been taken, and no facts appear that would enable him to maintain any suit or proceeding for damages. It is clear that Mr. Aspinwall could not have instituted the proceedings before the county commissioners. His claim is that he was a person interested in the original proceedings, and was entitled to notice, and to be heard, and that, appearing according to the notice, he had the right to be admitted as a party by the county...