First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Maine Turnpike Authority
Decision Date | 21 October 1957 |
Citation | 153 Me. 131,136 A.2d 699 |
Parties | The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON and National Bank of Commerce of Portland, In Equity, v. MAINE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY et al. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Hutchinson, Pierce, Atwood & Allen, Portland, for plaintiff.
H. E. Foster, Winthrop, Frank Harding, Rockland, Verrill, Dana, Walker, Philbrick & Whitehouse, Portland, Joseph Gorham & Everett Maxcey, Locke, Campbell, Reid & Hebert, Augusta, Skelton & Taintor, Lewiston, Linnell, Perkins, Thompson, Hinckley, & Thaxter, Portland, Sanborn & Sanborn, Augusta, George D. Varney, Portsmouth, N. H., Warren Paine, Portland, Roger A. Putnam, James G. Frost, Augusta, Bingham, Dana & Gould, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, BELIVEAU, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN and DUBORD, JJ.
The Maine Turnpike Authority extended its toll road from Portland to Augusta and thus obliged the defendant utilities to relocate or replace some of their pipes, wire lines and other facilities which had been installed in many portions of extant public ways traversed en route. The Authority has negated all liability for payment of the expense and losses entailed in such transposition or abandonment and the utilities have submitted to the cost under steadfast protest. The resultant outlay and deprivations have been of serious financial magnitude for the utilities.
Pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, R.S. c. 107, §§ 38 through 50, and on behalf of the bondholders, the plaintiff banks as trustees under the indenture of trust of the Authority have instituted this bill in equity against the Authority, the utilities and the Attorney General to have resolved the controversy as to who must sustain the expense of relocation and the cost of replacement. By agreement amongst all parties the issue is restricted to liability without fixation of the amount of any damages.
Before construction of the turnpike extension the legislature had accorded to the utilities by charter, statute or statutory validation, and without charge, the permit to maintain in the public ways their facilities and the utilities had made the installations. The purport of such legislative privilege is of prime concern in this case and is discovered by court precedents and statutes.
A review of the decided cases of this court is informative.
In Rockland Water Company v. City of Rockland, 1891, 83 Me. 267, 22 A. 166, it was decided that a right by charter to lay pipes in city streets 'in such manner as not to obstruct or impede travel thereon' does not afford a right of action against the city which in repairing a street uncovers one of the submerged pipes and exposes it to frost, 'in the absence of any improper method in so doing.'
Inhabitants of Paris v. Norway Water Company, 1893, 85 Me. 330, 27 A. 143, 145, 21 L.R.A. 525, concerns itself primarily with the cataloguing of utility facilities for taxation purposes. At pages 332, and 144 respectively. The decision says, in part:
'* * * Such companies, therefore, by the public license accorded them, take no title in the land. * * *'
'* * * water mains, pipes, etc., may be considered real estate, and taxable, where they are located * * *'. 85 Me. 334, 335, 27 A. 145.
This case of Inhabitants of Paris v. Norway Water Company holding that water pipes, hydrants and conduits of a water company, laid in public streets are real estate for the purposes of taxation in the instance of a private corporation chartered by special act of the legislature (P. & S. 1885, c. 369; 1887, c. 46) to lay its installations in public ways 'under such reasonable restrictions as may be imposed by the selectmen of said town,' has been excessively interpreted and enlarged in the quest to justify an implication that such a chartered utility is not subject to relocation of its facilities installed in public streets or ways without compensation. Language used in Readfield Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Cyr, 95 Me. 287 at page 293, 49 A. 1047, and in City of Portland v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, 103 Me. 240 at page 246, 68 A. 1040, in attempts to distinguish those opinions from that of Inhabitants of Paris v. Norway Water Company has been the occasion of misapprehension as to the primacy and permanence of the police power.
Belfast Water Company v. City of Belfast, 1898, 92 Me. 52, 42 A. 235, arose from a contract between the utility and the city, permitting the utility to lay its pipes in the city street. The utility laid its pipes. The city in altering its sidewalk required the utility to relocate its pipes. The utility brought the action to recover from the city the expense of such relocation and was denied relief. The court said:
At pages 58 and 237, respectively. (emphasis supplied)
Brunswick Gas Light Company v. Brunswick Village Corporation, 1899, 92 Me. 493, 43 A. 104, was an action by a utility which by charter had 'the right to lay gas pipes in any of the public streets and highways of the town of Brunswick, the consent of the selectmen of said town having first therefor been obtained.' The utility claimed 'that its pipes, lawfully in the Brunswick streets, were broken by the defendant in the course of the construction of sewers in said Streets.' The court opinion contains the following tenets:
At pages 497 and 105, respectively.
At pages 496 and 105, respectively. (emphasis supplied)
At pages 497 and 105, respectively.
In Readfield Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Cyr, 1901, 95 Me. 287, 290, 49 A. 1047, 1048, a case concerning a permit by general statute to a class of utilities, is found:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Redevelopment Agency
...so provides. (Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. City of L. A., supra, 50 Cal.2d 713, 719, 329 P.2d 289; First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Maine Turnpike Auth., 153 Me. 131, 152, 136 A.2d 699, 711; Consolidated Edison of New York v. Lindsay, 24 N.Y.2d 309, 300 N.Y.S.2d 321, 248 N.E.2d 150, 154; Appalachia......
-
Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Los Angeles
...such agent acting in its governmental capacity to invoke the public right for the public benefit. First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Maine Turnpike Authority, 153 Me. 131, 136 A.2d 699, 711; City of San Antonio v. Bexar Metropolitan Water Dist., Tex.Civ.App., 309 S.W.2d 491, 493; Cummins v. City ......
-
Port of New York Authority v. Hackensack Water Co.
...upon the utility company. Walker v. North Bergen, supra, 84 N.J.L. 248, 86 A. 63; see also First Nat'l Bank v. Maine Turnpike Authority, 153 Me. 131, 136 A.2d 699, 711 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1957). The Home Rule Act was not intended to make a utility's liability depend upon legislative decision at the......
-
Delaware River Port Authority v. Tiemann
...the Administrator's order is federal action. Even if the impairment clause was applicable, First National Bank v. Maine Turnpike Authority, 153 Me. 131, 165-71, 136 A.2d 699, 718-21 (1957) cited by the DRPA, which held that the state legislature could not impair a contract between the Autho......