Nantucket Exp. Lines, Inc. v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket S.S. Authority
| Decision Date | 03 February 1966 |
| Citation | 213 N.E.2d 862,350 Mass. 173 |
| Parties | NANTUCKET EXPRESS LINES, INC., et al. v. WOODS HOLE, MARTHA'S VINEYARD AND NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Roger F. Turner, Milton, for petitioners.
Laurence S. Fordham, Boston, for respondent.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, KIRK and SPIEGEL, JJ.
In July, 1959, a final decree was entered in the Superior Court in a suit brought by the New Bedford, Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority (the Authority) against Nantucket Express Lines, Inc., Island Steamship Lines, Inc., Island Service Co., Joseph T. Gelinas and Carl A. Dahlberg. That decree enjoined the five defendants (petitioners here) and their officers, servants and agents from operating the vessel 'Martha's Vineyard' between the mainland of the Commonwealth and Nantucket, so long as any bonds issued by the Authority pursuant to St.1948, c. 544, remained unpaid.
In January, 1965, three of the defendants 1 in the 1959 suit petitioned for leave to file a bill to review the decree entered in that suit. Leave was denied and the petitioners have appealed. 2
The 1959 decree was entered in accordance with St.1948, c. 544, § 6, which provided in part: 'While any bonds issued by the Authority remain unpaid, no person shall operate a vessel of more than one hundred tons gross tonnage to carry by water passengers or freight between the mainland of the commonwealth and the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, and the Authority shall be entitled to receive injunctive relief against such operation.' By St.1960, c. 701, the Authority was abolished, the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority (the new Authority) was created, and the new Authority was vested with all the assets of the Authority and assumed all its indebtedness and liabilities. Section 5 of c. 701 provided that
The bill of review which the petitioners sought leave to file in the present proceeding asserted that St.1960, c. 701, was new matter arising after the entry of the decree in 1959 and requiring the vacating of the decree. A bill of review is the appropriate proceeding by which to seek reversal or modification of a final decree in equity by reason of new matter arising after the entry of the decree. Boston & Maine R. R. v. Town of Greenfield, 253 Mass. 391, 397, 149 N.E. 322. Brooks v. National Shawmut Bank, 323 Mass. 677, 684, 84 N.E.2d 318. A change in the applicable law may be such new matter. Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 239, 246-247.
Thus, if there were no more to the case than this, we would have to consider whether the changes in the governing law made by St.1960, c. 701, require any changes in the 1959 decree. That question, however, need not be answered since a reconsideration of the 1959 decree is barred by a prior adjudication in a proceeding between the same parties or their privies involving the same issues.
In May, 1962, Nantucket Express Lines, Inc. and Joseph T. Gelinas petitioned for leave to file a bill to review the 1959 decree. 3 The 1962 bill of review set forth the abolition of the Authority by St.1960, c. 701, and the creation of the new Authority. It concluded: '[A]s a result of said new matters and occurrences arising after the entry of * * * [the 1959 decree] the issues set forth in the * * * original petition * * * in equity have become moot, and * * * it would be inequitable and constitute a hardship upon your petitioners unless * * * [the 1959 decree] be vacated.' A final decree was entered in the 1962 bill of review proceeding modifying the 1959 final decree in respects not here relevant.
Thus, in 1962 the new matter now relied upon by the petitioners was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
School Committee of Springfield v. Board of Ed.
...Dept. AFL-CIO v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 81 S.Ct. 368, 5 L.Ed.2d 349 (1961). See Nantucket Exp. Lines, Inc. v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Authy., 350 Mass. 173, 174--175, 213 N.E.2d 862 (1966), cert. den. 384 U.S. 952, 86 S.Ct. 1573, 16 L.Ed.2d 549 (1966). Cf. Royal v. Roy......
-
In re Nardone, Case No. 05-21490-JBR (Bankr.Mass. 7/7/2008)
...Massachusetts will give preclusive effect to consent judgments. Nantucket Express Lines, Inc. V. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, 350 Mass. 173, 176, 213 N.E.2d 862, 864 (1966). Yet not all consent judgments satisfy the requirement that the issue to be preclu......
-
A. J. Wolfe Co. v. Baltimore Contractors, Inc.
...Court (1954). See Bressler v. Averbuck, 322 Mass. 139, 143, 76 N.E.2d 146; Nantucket Express Lines, Inc. v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket S. S. Authy., 350 Mass. 173, 174, 213 N.E.2d 862. The action at law was commenced in the Superior Court for Suffolk County against Baltimore ......
-
Trustees of Stigmatine Fathers, Inc. v. Secretary of Administration and Finance
...339 (1975). The decree was no less conclusive because it was entered by consent. Nantucket Express Lines, Inc. v. Wood's Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Authority, 350 Mass. 173, 176, 213 N.E.2d 862, cert. denied, 384 U.S. 952, 86 S.Ct. 1573, 16 L.Ed.2d 549 This problem has recentl......