Commonwealth v. Potter

Decision Date05 January 1926
Citation150 N.E. 213,254 Mass. 271
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. POTTER.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Criminal Court, Middlesex County; Nelson P. Brown, Judge.

George P. Potter was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle for transporting passengers for hire between fixed and regular termini within the commonwealth without first obtaining license therefor from the city of Lowell, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.

1. Automobiles k77-Operation of motor vehicle for transporting passengers without license held violative of statute.

Operation of motor vehicle for transportation of passengers for hire between fixed termini within state without obtaining license for operation thereof from licensing authority of city along route within commonwealth held violative of G. L. c. 159, ss 45-47.

2. Automobiles k322-Employee responsible for operating vehicle without license.

In prosecution, under G. L. c. 159, s 45, for unlawfully operating on a public way in city an automobile, for transporting passengers for hire as a business between fixed termini, without license therefor from city, that defendant was an employee of another was no defense; both principals and agents being within the statute.

3. Commerce k13-Fact that defendant operated in part in interstate commerce held no protection.

On complaint, under G. L. c. 159, s 45, charging defendant with unlawfully operating, on a public way in city, an automobile to transport passengers for hire as a business within fixed and regular termini, without license from city therefor, fact that defendant was operating motor vehicle used in part for interstate commerce held no protection; the statute, however, as matter of interpretation, not applying to operators engaged solely and exclusively in interstate commerce.A. K. Reading, Dist. Atty., and W. L. Bishop, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.

J. Joseph Hennessy, of Lowell, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

[1] This is a complaint under G. L. c. 159, § 45, wherein the defendant is charged with unlawfully operating upon a public way in Lowell an automobile for transporting passengers for hire as a business between fixed and regular termini without first obtaining a license therefor from the licensing authority of the city of Lowell. The case was submitted to the jury on an agreed statement of facts. It therein appears that the defendant was regularly employed as an operator of a motor vehicle by a corporation owning a number of motor vehicles, which it operated for the purpose of transporting passengers for hire as a business between a fixed and regular terminus in Manchester in the state of New Hampshire and a like terminus in Boston in this commonwealth, according to an established daily schedule whereby eight trips each way are made between Boston and Lowell. Such motor vehicles pass through and stop at a designated stopping place in Lowell for the purpose of taking on and discharging passengers. The defendant on the date charged and as part of his employment operated one of said motor vehicles over a public way for the purpose of transportingfor hire passengers first taken on at Lowell and carried to Boston, and did actually so transport such passengers, whose journey as passengers began and ended in this commonwealth. No license for the operation of the motor vehicle had been obtained from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Armburg v. Boston & M.R.R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1931
    ...L. R. 683;Barrows v. Farnum's Stage Lines, Inc., 254 Mass. 240, 245, 246, 150 N. E. 206, and cases there reviewed; Commonwealth v. Potter, 254 Mass. 271, 273, 150 N. E. 213. It was said in Wabash Railroad v. Hayes, 234 U. S. 86, 89, 90, 34 S. Ct. 729, 58 L. Ed. 1226: ‘Had the injury occurre......
  • Haseltoim, County Sol. v. Interstate Stage Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1926
    ...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 involved the construction and constitutionality under the commerce clause of a state statute which expressly......
  • Conlin Bus Lines, Inc. v. Old Colony Coach Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1933
    ...to us for decision, and is not covered by Barrows v. Farnum's Stage Lines, Inc., 254 Mass. 240, 150 N. E. 206;Commonwealth v. Potter, 254 Mass. 271, 150 N. E. 213, and the other decisions in the same volume cited in the latter case. The definition of interstate commerce and the determinatio......
  • Commonwealth v. Reardon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1933
    ...on highways is settled. It may require licenses for operators of motor vehicles engaged in local or domestic carriate. Commonwealth v. Potter, 254 Mass. 271, 150 N. E. 213. It may constitute licenses subject to reasonable conditions a prerequisite to such operation of motor vehicles. Common......
  • 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