Mountain Springs Water Co., Inc. v. Mountain Lakes Village Dist., 84-169
| Decision Date | 01 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-169,84-169 |
| Citation | 126 N.H. 199,489 A.2d 647 |
| Parties | MOUNTAIN SPRINGS WATER COMPANY, INC. v. MOUNTAIN LAKES VILLAGE DISTRICT et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Myers & Laufer, Concord (Daniel A. Laufer, Concord, on brief and orally), for plaintiff.
Law Offices of Laurence F. Gardner, Hanover (H. Bernard Waugh, Jr., Hanover, on brief and orally), for defendants.
The plaintiff, Mountain Springs Water Company, Inc., filed a complaint against the defendants in superior court, alleging intentional interference with contractual relations and unlawful restraint of trade in violation of RSA 356:2. The Superior Court (Johnson, J.) dismissed the action. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On February 4, 1981, the plaintiff filed the complaint against the Mountain Lakes Village District, the Mountain Lakes Community Association, Inc., and numerous individuals who were alleged to be commissioners, officials and officers of the two defendant organizations. The complaint included two counts: count one alleged that the defendants intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's contractual relations with its customers; and count two alleged that the defendants violated RSA 356:2 as a result of their attempts to prevent customers from dealing with the plaintiff. On December 27, 1983, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that it failed to state a cause of action.
The plaintiff, Mountain Springs Water Company, Inc., was formed in 1973 in order to provide water service for the subdivision of Mountain Lakes in the Town of Haverhill. In 1976, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (PUC) awarded the plaintiff a franchise and permission to collect charges for its water service. The acts and events alleged in the complaint began in 1977 and continued at the time the suit was filed in February of 1981.
"In ruling on a motion to dismiss, all facts properly pleaded by the plaintiff are deemed true, and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom are construed most favorably to the plaintiff." Plante v. Engel, 124 N.H. 213, 215, 469 A.2d 1299, 1300 (1983) (quoting Weld Power Industries v. C.S.I. Technologies, 124 N.H. 121, 123, 467 A.2d 568, 569 (1983)). The plaintiff must, however, plead sufficient facts to form a basis for the cause of action asserted. See id. Further, in reviewing a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, we need not accept statements in the complaint which are merely conclusions of law. Williams v. Mathewson, 73 N.H. 242, 243, 60 A. 687, 687 (1905).
Moreover, we note at the outset that, although the defendants raise a number of defenses and justifications to both counts of the complaint, those defenses require factual determinations. We may not consider such "factual defenses" in reviewing motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Kenneth E. Curran, Inc. v. Auclair Transp. Inc., 121 N.H. 451, 454, 431 A.2d 124, 126 (1981).
With the above standard in mind, we will address the plaintiff's first cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations between the plaintiff and its customers. In order to plead interference with contractual relations the plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff had a contractual relation with its customers; (2) the defendants knew of the contractual relation; and (3) the defendants wrongfully induced the customers to breach their agreement with the plaintiff. Montrone v. Maxfield, 122 N.H. 724, 726, 449 A.2d 1216, 1217 (1982); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1979).
The plaintiff's complaint alleged that the PUC had granted the plaintiff a franchise and permission to collect charges for the water service...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chasan v. Village Dist. of Eastman, 86-081
... ... Water Company and the Eastman Golf Course were owned ... , Nicholas and Estey moved to intervene as co-plaintiffs. Their motions were granted, and in ... Springs Water Co. v. Mt. Lakes Village Dist., 126 N.H ... Land/Vest Properties, Inc. v. Town of Plainfield, 117 N.H. 817, 823, 379 ... Blue Mountain Hospital District, 214 Or. 141, 153, 328 P.2d ... ...
-
Guglielmo v. Worldcom, Inc.
...We need not, however, accept statements in the complaint that are merely legal conclusions. See Mt. Springs Water Co. v. Mt. Lakes Vill. Dist., 126 N.H. 199, 201, 489 A.2d 647 (1985).I. Filed Rate Doctrine Section 203(a) of the FCA requires every common carrier to file with the Federal Comm......
-
Guglielmo v. Worldcom, Inc., 2001-718.
...not, however, accept statements in the complaint that are merely legal conclusions. See Mt. Springs Water Co. v. Mt. Lakes Vill. Dist., 126 N.H. 199, 201, 489 A.2d 647 I. Filed Rate Doctrine Section 203(a) of the FCA requires every common carrier to file with the Federal Communications Comm......
-
Thompson v. Forest
...Id. "[W]e need not accept statements in the complaint which are merely conclusions of law." Mt. Springs Water Co. v. Mt. Lakes Vill. Dist., 126 N.H. 199, 201, 489 A.2d 647, 649 (1985). The defendants argue that all counts in the writ should be dismissed. They assert that the provision for p......
-
New Hampshire. Practice Text
...in restraint of trade. 21 15. Id . § 356:2. 16. Id . §§ 356:2(II)(a)-(e). 17. Mountain Springs Water Co. v. Mountain Lakes Vill. Dist., 489 A.2d 647, 650 (N.H. 1985) (holding that a claim under the provision of N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 356:2, which addressed refusals to deal, would survive a ......
-
New Hampshire
...N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 356:2. 16. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 356:2(II)(a)-(e). 17. Mountain Springs Water Co. v. Mountain Lakes Vill. Dist., 489 A.2d 647, 650 (N.H. 1985) (holding that a claim under the provision of N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 356:2, which addressed refusals to deal, would survive ......