Nantucket Boat Inc. v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket S.S. Authority

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: Before WILKINS; CUTTER
• Citation: 188 N.E.2d 476,345 Mass. 551
• Decision Date: 04 March 1963
• Parties: NANTUCKET BOAT INC. v. WOODS HOLD, MARTHA'S VINEYARD AND NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY et al.

Page 476

188 N.E.2d 476 345 Mass. 551 NANTUCKET BOAT INC.
v.
WOODS HOLD, MARTHA'S VINEYARD AND NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY et al. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Barnstable. Argued Feb. 6, 1963.
Decided March 4, 1963.

[345 Mass. 552] Daniel J. Fern, Hyannis, for plaintiff.

Roger F. Turner, Milton, for Nantucket Express Lines, Inc. and another.

Laurence S. Fordham, Boston, for Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority.

Page 477

Before [345 Mass. 551] WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, and REARDON, JJ.

[345 Mass. 552] CUTTER, Justice.

This bill in equity seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the authority, Nantucket Express Lines, Inc., and Island Steamship Lines, Inc. The authority exists under St.1960, c. 701, ¹ to provide transportation between Falmouth (Woods Hole) and the islands, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Since 1946, the plaintiff (Boat Inc.) has furnished water transportation between Hyannis and Nantucket by vessels of less than 100 gross tons. The bill alleges that, 'provided a payment of at least' $10,000 is made (presumably to the authority), the authority intends to license the 'Martha's Vineyard,' a vessel of more than 100 gross tons owned by Island Steamship Lines Inc. to be operated by Nantucket Express Lines, Inc., between Hyannis and Nantucket, and that such operation 'would improperly and unlawfully compete with the operations and business of' Boat Inc. The bill further avers (a) that 'the proposed operation * * * is not necessary or desirable to serve the purposes' of the 1960 statute, (b) that the statute contains 'no sufficient declaration of policy, standards or limitations to be followed by * * * [the] authority in giving such written license,' (c) that §§ 4 and 5 ² of the statute [345 Mass. 553] illegally delegate a legislative function to the authority in violation of art. 30 of the Declaration of Rights, (d) that the proposed action denies Boat Inc. the equal protection of the laws, and (e) that the 'proposed operation * * * would result in loss * * * to' Boat Inc. ³

Each defendant filed a demurrer on the ground, among others, that the bill does not set forth facts justifying equitable relief to Boat Inc. Boat Inc. appealed from interlocutory decrees sustaining each demurrer and from a final decree dismissing the bill.

1. Whether a plaintiff has standing to seek declaratory relief may be raised by demurrer. ⁴ Burnes v. Metropolitan Dist. Comm., 325 Mass. 731, 735, 92 N.E.2d 381; Povey v. School Comm. of Medford, 333 Mass. 70, 71-73, 127 N.E.2d 925. See Cabot v. Assessors of Boston, 335 Mass. 53, 57-58, 138 N.E.2d 618; Stow v. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation, 336 Mass. 337, 339-340, 145 N.E.2d 720.

Page 478

2. Boat Inc. has not alleged that it has any special standing given to it by statute (see Massachusetts Soc. of Optometrists v. Waddick, 340 Mass. 581, 583-585, 165 N.E.2d 394) to proceed against the defendants or any special or exclusive franchise or license to operate boats between Hyannis and...