Concord & Montreal Railroad v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Petition, for the location of a union station at Manchester. All the parties desire the erection of such a station, which, it is conceded, the public good requires; but they are unable to agree upon a location. The defendants claim that the court has no jurisdiction.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam. *
The legislature has not authorized the railroad commissioners to locate railroad stations (P. S., c. 155, ss. 11-23, c. 159, ss. 21, 22), and no other tribunal is directly invested with that power. It is conceded that the public good requires that there should be a union passenger station in the city of Manchester, to be used by the railroads connecting at that point, for the accommodation of the public as well as for their own convenience and advantage. From this concession it necessarily follows that it is the legal duty of the parties to locate, erect, and maintain such a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Boody v. WatsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Walker v. WalkerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- Burke v. Concord RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jacquelin v. Erie RailroadNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1905
- Warner v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Aandahl v. Great Northern Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1919