Me.-N.H. Interstate Bridge Auth. v. Ham
| Decision Date | 05 November 1940 |
| Citation | 16 A.2d 362 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | MAINE-NEW HAMPSHIRE INTERSTATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY v. HAM. |
Transferred from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Johnston, Judge.
Petition by the Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Bridge Authority against Richard H. Ham to condemn defendant's land for use in connection with the approach to an interstate toll bridge. In advance of hearing the trial judge transferred with out ruling the question whether plaintiff had authority to take the property for the use contemplated.
Petition dismissed.
Petition, for the condemnation of certain land of the defendant in Portsmouth for use in connection with the approach to the interstate toll bridge now being constructed. In advance of hearing Johnston, J, transferred without ruling the question whether the plaintiff had authority to take the property for the use contemplated. The facts pleaded appear in the opinion.
Sewall, Varney & Hartnett and Henry M. Fuller, all of Portsmouth, for plaintiff.
William H. Sleeper, of Exeter, for defendant.
Pursuant to an interstate compact entered into by this State and the State of Maine, the plaintiff was incorporated in both states to erect and operate in trust for the public a toll bridge over the Piscataqua River designed for highway and railroad use. A further purpose of the corporation is to provide and improve suitable approaches to the bridge.
The compact (Laws 1936, Special Session, c. 4, § 1) provides that the Authority may acquire "any real property and rights or easements therein, deemed by it necessary or desirable for its purposes, and to use such property." The Authority was incorporated in New Hampshire (section 6 of said act) with the power to acquire such rights by condemnation, in the manner provided in sections 18-28 of P.L. c. 19. The present proceedings appear to conform to those sections.
The petition for condemnation avers that the acquisition of the rights in question "is desirable and necessary in order to relocate the high-tension line of the New Hampshire Gas & Electric Company." These lines formerly ran across the layout for the New Hampshire approach. It may be assumed that the new construction made it in the judgment of the Authority both "desirable and necessary" that the transmission line be removed from its former location to another point where it would be necessary to cross the defendant's land. It may even be assumed, for present purposes, that this was the only point where the crossing could be made without undue interference with the use of the approach.
If, as a consequence, the public good required the crossing of the defendant's land, the utility could have acquired easements for that purpose by condemnation proceedings before the Public Service Commission. P.L. c. 244. It might be true that, pending the acquisition of such rights, which might take considerable time, the Authority would be in a quandary. If the Authority waited for the conclusion of such proceedings, the work on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Pennichuck Water Works, Inc.
...38 governing the power of a municipality to take property from a privately-owned public utility. Maine–New Hampshire Interstate Bridge, etc. v. Ham, 91 N.H. 179, 181, 16 A.2d 362 (1940). In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiters of the legislature's intent as express......
-
Bertagnoli v. Baker
...terms and clear implication of the statute. City of Birmingham v. Brown, 241 Ala. 203, 2 So.2d 305; Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Bridge Authority v. Ham, 91 N.H. 179, 16 A.2d 362; Detroit G. H. and M. Railway Company v. Weber, 24, Mich. 28, 226 N.W. 663; U. S. v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.......
-
Public Service Co. v. Shannon
...the decisions in Thompson v. Manchester Traction, Light and Power Company, 78 N.H. 433, 101 A. 212, and Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Bridge &c. v. Ham, 91 N.H. 179, 16 A.2d 362. While a public utility cannot condemn land without statutory authority, express or implied, condemnation statut......
-
Leary v. City of Manchester
...terms and necessary implications (Thompson v. Manchester Traction, etc., Company, 78 N. H. 433, 434, 101 A. 212; Maine-New Hampshire &c. Authority v. Ham, N.H., 16 A.2d 362), the plaintiff's title cannot be acquired under the act above A general statute, P.L. c. 42, § 71, authorizes towns t......