Legal Opinion

Newcomb v. Norfolk Western Street Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 3, 1901PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Petition by the selectmen of Dedham under Pub. Sts. c. 113, § 63, for an order compelling the Norfolk Western Street-Railway Company to water High Street in that town in accordance with a restriction contained in a grant of location to the respondent, filed May 24, 1900. The respondent demurred to the petition and the case was heard by Lathrop, J., who was of the opinion that the demurrer should be overruled; and at the request of the i-espondent reported the case for the…

Read the full summary

Petition by the selectmen of Dedham under Pub. Sts. c. 113, § 63, for an order compelling the Norfolk Western Street-Railway Company to water High Street in that town in accordance with a restriction contained in a grant of location to the respondent, filed May 24, 1900. The respondent demurred to the petition and the case was heard by Lathrop, J., who was of the opinion that the demurrer should be overruled; and at the request of the i-espondent reported the case for the consideration of the full court. The respondent admitted at the hearing, that if the demurrer was overruled there was no…

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, C. J.

The requirement in § 23 of the grant of the location to the respondent that it shall water the street over a portion of the way between certain dates was a lawful restriction within Pub. Sts. c. 113, § 7, which allowed selectmen to grant a location “ under such restrictions as they deem the interests of the public may require.” The well-known effect of running cars is to raise a dust, and the requirement, although affirmative in form, in substance restricts the respondent to running cars in such a way as not to raise a dust. The case is not affected by St. 1898, c. 578. See § 11.

This being…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 1890

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Selectmen of Clinton v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  3. Selectmen of Gardner v. Templeton Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
  4. Inhabitants of Southborough v. Boston & Worcester Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
  5. Keefe v. Lexington & Boston Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API