Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Morrill v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided August 12, 1875Published

Bill in equity, against tlie Boston & Maine Railroad and its directors, and against the Eastern Railroad and its directors and managers, in which the plaintiffs allege that they are stockholders in said Boston & Maine Railroad; that said Boston & Maine Railroad was chartered by tbe legislature of said state of New Hampshire, and, by the action of the legislatures of said Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine, forms and constitutes a joint and continuous line of route…

Read the full summary

Bill in equity, against tlie Boston & Maine Railroad and its directors, and against the Eastern Railroad and its directors and managers, in which the plaintiffs allege that they are stockholders in said Boston & Maine Railroad; that said Boston & Maine Railroad was chartered by tbe legislature of said state of New Hampshire, and, by the action of the legislatures of said Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine, forms and constitutes a joint and continuous line of route between said Boston and Portland and between said Boston and Great Palls, in said state of New Hampshire, and all…

1Concurrence

The statute, an alleged violation of which is the matter complained of, seems to me to have been drawn so as exactly to embrace this suit, as it particularly specifies those cases in which railroads, existing under the laws of New Hampshire, form parts of lines, without limiting those lines to the state.

The injurious effect of a consolidation is the prevention of competition, and that wholesome restraint upon exorbitant fares which can only be secured by free competition. A contract, which provides for dividing the earnings, after deducting a certain percentage for expenses, and which,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Currier v. Concord RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1869

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API