Eastern Massachusetts St. Ry. Co. v. Trs., Eastern Massachusetts St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 November 1925
• Citation: 254 Mass. 28,149 N.E. 628
• Parties: EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS ST. RY. CO. v. TRUSTEES, EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS ST. RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

254 Mass. 28

149 N.E. 628

EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS ST. RY. CO.

v.TRUSTEES, EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Nov. 25, 1925.

Case Reserved and Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Suit in equity by the Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Company against Trustees, Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Company, to ascertain whether defendants are empowered to operate motorbusses without licenses from licensing boards in cities and towns. Case reserved and reported. Bill dismissed.

1. Carriers k8-Licenses from local authorities for use of motorbusses required by statute.

In view of St. 1919 (Ex. Sess.) c. 371, s 7, which repealed St. 1916, c. 293, St. 1918, c. 226, and G. L. c. 159, ss 45-49, as amended by St. 1925, c. 280, and G. L. c. 161, s 44, require licenses from local authorities for use of motor vehicles for transportation of passengers for hire.

2. Carriers k8-Statutes requiring license from local authorities for passenger busses not rendered inapplicable by special statute.

General provisions of G. L. c. 159, s 45, as amended by St. 1925, c. 280, and G. L. c. 161, s 44, requiring licenses from local authorities for passenger motorbusses, held not to have been rendered inapplicable by Sp. St. 1918, c. 188, although latter act imposed on trustees authority to determine character and extent of service and facilities to be furnished by street railway company, especially in view of St. 1919 (Ex. Sess.) c. 371, s 4, stipulating that street railway availing itself of act should be subject to other parts thereof requiring licenses from local authority.

3. Carriers k8-Authority of trustees of street railway held not to exempt railway from obtaining motorbus license.

Sp. St. 1918, c. 188, s 11, exempting trustees of street railway from approval, control, or discretion of other state board, held not to exempt railway from obtaining motorbus license required by G. L. c. 159, ss 45, as amended by St. 1925, c. 280.

4. Statutes k181(2)-Hardship on street railway and stockholders not controlling in interpretation of statute requiring license for motorbusses.

Hardship on street railway and holders of its securities, arising from competition by railroads, under St. 1925, c. 280, repealing former laws respecting licenses by local authorities for operation of motor vehicles, is not controlling in interpretation of statute requiring licenses for motorbusses.B. B. Jones, of Boston, for plaintiff.

P. G. Carleton, of Boston, for defendant.

Joseph Wentworth, of Boston, amicus curiae.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a suit in equity reserved on the bill and answer. The plaintiff is a street railway company organized under Special Sts. 1918, c. 188, for the purpose of taking over the assets and franchises of another street railway company then in the hands of a receiver. It has all the powers and privileges of a street railway company organized under the general laws so far as applicable. The defendants constitute a public board, called the trustees, created by said chapter 188, to whom is given until 1929 the general control of the plaintiff and, with limited exceptions, of all its corporate powers. In general they are required to charge such rates and fares as will defray the costs of the service including operation, maintenance, interest on stock and bonds and proper allowances for depreciation, obsolescence and rehabilitation. The plaintiff is in effect under the management of public trustees for the benefit of all parties concerned. The purpose of the suit is to ascertain whether the defendants are empowered under the law to operate motor vehicles or busses without licenses from licensing boards in cities and towns under G. L. c. 159, § 45, as amended by St. 1925, c. 280.

The history of the statutes relating to the operation of motor vehicles known as busses on public ways may be briefly stated. First it was provided by St. 1916, c. 293, that cities and towns accepting the act should have authority to license and regulate the transportation of passengers for hire between fixed termini by motor vehicle. Commonwealth v. Slocum, 230 Mass. 180, 119 N. E. 687. That statute conferred no authority on street railway companies to operate motor vehicles for the transportation of passengers for hire. Such authority was conferred by St. 1918, c. 226, § 1, to be exercised only upon approval by the Public Service Commission, as it was then, now the Department of Public Utilities. By section 2, street railway companies thus operating motor vehicles were made subject to St. 1916, c. 293, and all persons operating motor vehicles for the carriage of persons for hire, in such manner as to afford transportation similar to street railways by indiscriminately receiving and discharging passengers along the route, were made subject to rules and regulations prescribed by local licensing authorities. It was provided by section 3 that, in cities and towns which had not accepted said chapter 293, the Public Service Commission should have jurisdiction to license and regulate such motor vehicle transportation. The law was extended by St. 1919 (Ex. Sess.) c. 371, to prohibit the operation on the highways of motor vehicles for the carriage of passengers for hire in such manner as to afford transportation similar to that afforded by street railways and between fixed termini, unless such operation was licensed by local authorities. The two earlier statutes were repealed by section 7 of that act. These several provisions as to license and regulation of motor vehicles for the carriage of passengers for hire on highways were embodied in G. L. c. 159, §§ 45 to 49, both inclusive, and as to authority to street railways to conduct such transportation, in G. L. c. 161, § 44. It was provided by St. 1925, c. 125, that a railroad corporation with the approval of the Department of Public Utilities might operate motor vehicles for the transportation of passengers and freight, subject among other conditions to the provisions of G. L. c. 159, §§ 45 to 49, as to licenses by local authorities. By St. 1925, c. 280, amendment was made to G. L. c. 159, § 45, but provision was retained respecting licenses by local authorities for the operation of motor vehicles for the carriage of passengers for hire, so far as concerns the present suit.

[1][2] It thus appears that statutes of general scope require licenses from local authorities for the use of motor vehicles for the transportation of passengers for hire. These general provisions are not rendered inapplicable to the plaintiff by any provisions of Special St. 1918, c. 188. It is provided by section 1 that the plaintiff shall exercise all powers and privileges of a street railway under general laws and be subject to all its...