Paine v. Newton St. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 77 N.E. 1026,192 Mass. 90
• Parties: PAINE v. NEWTON ST. RY. CO.
• Decision Date: 17 May 1906
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

192 Mass. 90

77 N.E. 1026

PAINE v. NEWTON ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 17, 1906

COUNSEL

Jesse C. Ivy, for appellant.

Powers & Hall, for appellee.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

This is a proceeding in equity brought under Rev. Laws, c. 112, § 100. It is entitled, in the plaintiff's bill 'Petition to annul, modify or amend rulings of the board of railroad commissioners approving an extension of street railway tracks granted to the defendant by the board of aldermen of said Newton.' After a statement of the rulings of the board in their refusal to make the rulings requested by the petitioner, the petition contains a prayer that these rulings be reviewed, annulled, modified or amended as law and justice may require, followed by certain other subsidiary prayers.

The statute above referred to is in part as follows: 'Sec 100. The Supreme Judicial Court or the superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity * * * to compel the observance of and to restrain the violation of all laws which govern street railway companies, and of all orders, rules and regulations made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, by the board of aldermen of a city, the selectmen of a town, or by the board of railroad commissioners, and to review, annul modify or amend the rulings of any state board or commission relative to street railways, as law and justice may require.' Upon the reading of the petition it is plain that it is brought under this section, and that the court has no jurisdiction except that given by this statute.

The first question is whether the word 'rulings,' near the end of the section, means rulings of law, or includes findings and decisions upon questions of fact. In the first place, by its ordinary meaning it is applicable to decisions upon questions of law, and not to findings upon matters of fact; secondly, in St. 1898, p. 748, c. 578, § 25, from which this part of the section is taken without other change, the language is 'ruling of law.'

The commissioners appointed to consolidate and arrange the public statutes were not authorized to make substantive changes in the statutes, but only to suggest 'mistakes, omissions inconsistencies and imperfections which may appear in the laws,' and the manner of correcting, supplying and amending them. Resolves 1896, p. 637, c. 87. There is nothing to show that they intended to change the meaning of this statute, and the fair inference is that the words 'of law' after 'rulings' were omitted as superfluous. That part of Rev. Laws, c. 112, § 100, which allows the petition to be brought by a street railway company or by any interested party as well as by the mayor and aldermen of a city or the selectmen of a town, was inserted...