City of Boston v. Jackson

Citation260 U.S. 309,43 S.Ct. 129,67 L.Ed. 274
Decision Date04 December 1922
Docket NumberNo. 141,141
PartiesCITY OF BOSTON v. JACKSON, Treasurer
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

[Syllabus on page 309-310 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Nathan Matthews and J. P. Lyons, both of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. J. Weston Allen, Edwin H. Abbot, Jr., and Alexander Lincoln, all of Boston, Mass., for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error to a decree of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts sustaining a demurrer to a bill in equity against the treasurer and receiver general of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Boston Elevated Railway Company, and the trustees who are operating the railway of that company under a special statute of the commonwealth (Sp. St. 1918, c. 159), and dismissing the bill for want of equity, the plaintiff not wishing to plead further. It now comes before us on a motion by the Attorney General of Massachusetts to dismiss or affirm.

The case as made by the bill is an impeachment of the validity of the special act of 1918. By acts of 1902 and 1911 (Stat. 1902, c. 534, and Stat. 1911, c. 741), the city of Boston was given power to construct and did construct subways and tunnels at a cost of $31,000,000, and by the same authority leased these and also others built by it under earlier statute to the Boston Elevated Railway Company for a fixed rental until July 1, 1936, and the whole property and its rents and profits are by the express terms of the statute held by the city 'in its private or proprietary capacity, for its own property,' never to be taken by the commonwealth except upon payment of just compensation. The railway company got into financial difficulty. It served the residents of Boston and other towns of the commonwealth. The General Court in the public interest passed the special act of 1918 to relieve the situation. In general the act provided for the appointment of trustees who were to take the railway out of the hand of the company and operate it under the leases to the company by the city of Boston, on condition that the stockholders of the railway company accepted the provisions of the act. It is not necessary to set out what these provisions in detail are, except to say that they provide for the payment of dividends on the stock of the company, the repair and maintenance of the railway, the raising of $3,000,000 by the company for the improvement of the property and a reserve fund, and the payment of any deficit in operation out of the treasury of the commonwealth. If the commonwealth is called upon to make payments, to meet deficits or diminution of the reserve fund, such amounts are to be assessed upon the several cities and towns in which the railway operates, as an addition to the regular state tax, in proportion to the number of persons in said cities and towns using the service of the company at the time of the payments as determined by the trustees. The trustees are to fix the fares to meet the cost of service, including taxes, rentals and interest on the indebtedness of the company, fixed dividends on the preferred stock, and 5 per cent. on the common stock for two years, 5 1/2 per cent. for the next two years and 6 per cent. for the remainder of public operation, which is for a period of ten years and thereafter as the commonwealth shall determine.

The company's stockholders having accepted the act, the trustees took over the possession and operation of the railway. They found the railway in bad repair and charged $2,000,000 for depreciation and $2,300,000 for maintenance and repair in the year 1919. This led to a deficit for that year of $4,000,000, although in previous years the company had not expended more than $100,000 a year on such account. The treasurer and receiver general under the act of 1918 paid the deficit out of the treasury of the commonwealth, and was about to include the same in the state taxes to be collected by the city of Boston and the other towns through which the railway runs in the proportion fixed by the act. The object of the bill was to prevent this levy and collection and further proceedings under the act.

The motion to dismiss is urged first on the ground that Charles L. Burrill as treasurer and receiver general was the defendant in the original bill and that the present defendant Jackson, his successor in office, has been substituted without legal sanction. The substitution took place in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts before that court considered the case on its merits and in the court's opinion the objection to the substitution was noted and overruled. This settles conclusively so far as we are concerned, that the state law authorized the substitution. The case of Irwin v. Webb, 258 U. S. 219, 42 Sup. Ct. 293, 66 L. Ed. 573, decided by this court March 20, 1922, has no application. That was an appeal from a federal District Court in which this court had to consider the substitution in this court of county officers newly elected for those in office when the suit was brought and the decree entered in the District Court. It was not authorized by the federal statute and we could find no state law which permitted it to be done.

The second ground urged for dismissal is that the tax for 1919 sought to be enjoined, has been collected from the taxpayers of the city by the city and paid over to the treasurer of the commonwealth so that the case here becomes a moot one. But the tax had been paid...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • In re Opinion of the Justices
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1941
    ...unconstitutional. See Boston v. Treasurer & Receiver General, 237 Mass. 403, 413, 414, 130 N.E. 390, affirmed, City of Boston v. Jackson, 260 U.S. 309, 43 S.Ct. 129, 67 L.Ed. 274;Allydonn Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Housing Authority, 304 Mass. 288, 292-297, 23 N.E.2d 665. See also Osborn v. Oz......
  • Boston Elevated Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1942
    ...and the Commonwealth. Boston v. Treasurer and Receiver General, 237 Mass. 403, 413, 415, 416, 130 N.E. 390;City of Boston v. Jackson, 260 U.S. 309, 43 S.Ct. 129,67 L.Ed. 124. See, also, In re Opinion of the Justices, 261 Mass. 523, 551-553, 159 N.E. 55;In re Opinion of the Justices, 309 Mas......
  • Attorney Gen. v. Trustees of Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1946
    ...528, 39 N.E.2d 87;Auditor of the Commonwealth v. Trustees of Boston Elevated Ry., 312 Mass. 74, 43 N.E.2d 124;Boston v. Jackson, 260 U.S. 309, 43 S.Ct. 129, 67 L.Ed. 274;Helvering v. Powers, 293 U.S. 214, 55 S.Ct. 171, 79 L.Ed. 291;Boston Elevated R. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1 C......
  • City of Charleston v. Public Service Com'n of West Virginia
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 9, 1995
    ...rights protected by the Contract Clause against subsequent impairment by its creator state. Compare City of Boston v. Jackson, 260 U.S. 309, 316, 43 S.Ct. 129, 132, 67 L.Ed. 274 (1922), and City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 250 U.S. 394, 39 S.Ct. 526, 63 L.Ed. 1054 (1919). In earl......
  • 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