*1 State v. Railroad. presumed contemplates that the act that children can it be Neither marriage absolutely it void because parents whose born regarded as polygamous legitimate, should be incestuous or either expressly to in one case statute declares them especially when regarded at in the other so common law. illegitimate and accomplish result, reason- intended to such legislature If declaring suppose unequivocal language it have used to would able an intent. such superior court, order made in the compliance there
In with .be, must
Judgment for defendants. All concurred.
Rockingham,1 June & Railroad. Boston Maine
State freights not on provision rates for fares shall be increased rail- The chapter 1889, applies all Laws to consolidations effected under roads united by lease, by union, purchase. thereunder, or whether confirming ratifying lease of the Manchester and Lawrence The act (Laws 301) and Maine Railroad did not release Railroad from the restrictions as to rates contained in the lessors increased road authority originally chapter under of which lease was made. united, provision rates shall be increased on railroads leased The chapter 156, acts of 1883 and in in the consolidation and 1889 contained operated by applicable Statutes, lines the Boston and all leased authority thereby upon conferred, which there were exist- under Railroad escape upon ing July 24,1889; line, restriction leased on rates corporation show state lessee the assent is incumbent railroad, expressed through otherwise such than a statute its of. containing prohibition. statutory as to an increase rates leased or united rail- restrictions operated by apply only authority to lines another under roads imposing statutes such restrictions. conferred injunction against an the collection rates Equity, Bill of the amount freights permitted in excess law. for fares term, 1910, court superior from the October Transferred agreement as Chamberlin, J., facts, purpose upon an determining system portions of the defendants’ railroad what H.] imposed *2 to the limitations to rates 100 of 1883, chapter of of 1889, the Laws Laws chapter and the Public Statutes. Eastman, attorney-general, Edwin G. Thorp (the and Louis A. attorney-general orally), for the state. Harding & Kelley,
Branch Branch and & (Oliver Hatch W. Branch orally), for the defendants. By forty C. J. different separate methods corporations
Parsons, brought have been under the direct control one to such an extent practical for forty all purposes single constitute a corpora tion. That this combination could brought have been about with out the assent of the state not claimed. suggested Neither is it illegal recognized or improper. It is legitimate as the legislation permissive adopted mainly result in 1883 and 1889, re-enacted in Public Statutes legislation in 1891. This against contained restriction the increase of rates for fares and freights upon roads combined under it. State Railroad, 75 N. H. agreement 327. The case is an here as to facts, question upon determination which of the roads included in applies. combination the restriction agreement In the for transfer, the defendants conceded that it did apply to nine of the thirty-six original roads described therein. In their brief add this two to list: the the Peterborough Wilton and Hillsborough. They also state the facts as to four other roads not mentioned in Peterborough the case: the Shirley, the Brookline, the Brook- Milford, line and Nashua and Acton.
Reversing prior policy state the subject, the legislature in 1883 the incorporation authorized railroads general law, providеd for the consolidation of existing roads, and created a greatly railroad commission with enlarged powers. Laws cc. portion 101. The this legislation material to the present inquiry “Any is: railroad may lease its road, property, railroad and interests to other corporation. railroad . And two or more railroad corporations . . . may unite form corporation: a new . . . Provided, that freights existing rates fares August 1, 1883, shall not be any part increased on of the roads so leased or united, and the operating decrease in the expenses consequent upon the leasing v. Railroad. by a be from time to time reasonable uniting of roads shall met s. 17. freights.” of fares and just reduction made, which leases were one of failed because this act certain Under rights objecting to secure the of stockholders provision of lack of an unwarranted alteration was held Railroad, 1. After an Dow v. 67 N. H. contract. partnership legislation further an act attempt to obtain unsuccessful removing general provisions which contained in 1889 passed fatal in Dow v. Railroad. The act was objection considered contained Laws of 1883. It an amendment entitled objection, and authorized the Concord provisions meet *3 form Boston, Concord and to unite and Railroad and the Montreal to and certain other roads 'to lease to either or corporation, a new proposed the сorporation, and the Concord Railroad and the new acqúire by rail- purchase authorized to certain corporation were to authority given other roads for lease was roads. Similar 1889, 5. Railroad. Laws c. the Boston and purchase July 24, 1889, provided: act, approved was This to lease to existing right corporations of railroad 16. No “Sect. corporations impaired with other railroad shall be unite all corporations and their stockholders shall have act. And such given by this act. remedies rights the existing the freights for at time 17. The rates fares “Sect leased act shall not be increased on the roads of of this passage con- operating expenses in it, under and the decrease or united from leasing uniting of roads shall be met sequent upon the freights.” just of fares and bya time reasonable and reduction time to Statutes), (the chapter 100, Laws of 1891 In the revision 1889, repealed. 1, chapter 5, Laws of were 1883, of and section By revision, all limitations S., 288, 15, pp. 776, s. 783. that P. c. might others were abandoned as railroads that be leased to 5, of (P. 17 of Laws S., 156, 21); s. but sections statutes, general provisions of the two were 1889, with the other re-enacted. twenty-nine place roads, that defendants their contention roads, exempt territory originally embraced within those are
or the grounds: (1) That of acts two the restrictions these from apply to and does not as to rates was not intended the restriction authority consolidation must be found roads, to whose certain roads was effected (2) of certain therein; the consolidation exempted the roads are imposing restriction, acts under other no N. H.] v. quoted of chapter 5, above
therefrom section The first chapter 156, Public Statutes. re-enacted section latter, general legislation; the construction of the ground involves a relating particular roads. special statutes jurisdiction legislative purpose no in which a probably is “There than a more liberal mode construction carried into effect prevails in this state. But the most liberal construction that which purpose of that from com- nothing more than ascertainment N. 65 H. 399. Railrоads, etc. R. R. v. petent evidence.” history legislation subject, circumstances “The properly consid- passed, were which the several statutes under etc., statute, context, the words of the in connection with ered Stanyan legislature.” intention in order ascertain statute, “The construction of a 69 N. H. 373. Peterborough, v. meaning document, is ascertainment as of written Opinion H. language using Justices, those it.” nearly as duty place of the court to itself 607. “It is the parties at the time the instrument in the situation possible language may gather their intention from the made, surrounding used, light of circumstances.” Weed viewed in the phrases in a statute are 71 N. H. Words Woods, according usage approved the common and be construed acquired meaning technical language, unless contrary intent would be to the manifest law, or such construction *4 2; Opinion Justices, legislature. S., 1, P. c. ss. 2, of the What, 625, then, H. were circumstances under which 626. meaning language dispute in was used? whose Colby in adoption 1883, of the so-called act Prior to the upon railroad policy opposed of the state consolidation relied tending competition as promotion of between roads rival 1867, 8; Fisher Rail- improve and lower rates. Laws c. v. service act of to exclude road, purported 50 N. H. 208. The an competing leasing other, exception, from to each with railroads practically attempted exclu- however, perhaps nullified the Railroads, R. 65 N. H. 399. That it was Boston etc.R. sion. excluding necessary insert com- apparently considered a clause strong of the consolidating by lease is evidence peting roads from Colby act existing disapproval of such Under the combination. Boston, made, among them the and the leases were Northern some The Northern to the Boston and Lowell. Concord Montreal 1887. The lease was soon March, lease was set aside in Montreal litigation. in In the session of attempts after involved were legislation validating leases, these made to secure which failed. Rep., legis- R. R. 1887. The situation which faced Comm’rs’ graphically portrayed 1889 when it met in June is in the lature of body, May, report the railrоad commission to dated history changes in the state and of railroad fully were discussed. It was the' inaugurated in 1883 claimed that policy new had resulted in lower under the fares consolidations public freights increased facilities to had reduced the with struggle was called to the operation. Attention between expense possession the Boston and Concord and Maine Boston, Montreal, Concord and and the situa- Northern railroads were left the failure of the leases. in which those tion Rep., pp. 9-14; lb., 1888, pp. 10, 17. R.R. Commrs’ legis- them, and with this information before In situation (Laws 100) by Colby passage bill lature amended the territory Laws of 1889. This was division of between chapter 5, legislators at least contending forces The undеrstood-—or officially the consolidations which had been informed —that rates; apparent had resulted lower and it is effected had been granted assump- was asked for and legislation that the proposed consolidation would result in lower rates tion freights. expectation That is written into section for fares and 17, chapter 5, and section Laws of 1889: chapter 100, Laws consequent operating expenses in the “The decrease any time uniting of roads shall be met from time to leasing or just freights.” It is also reduction of fares and a reasonable that none of the roads inference from the situation reasonable then an in rates over those anticipated occasion for inсrease legislation asked for the Boston and existing. The 14): (s. provision bill—contained the so-called Hazen 1887—the August 1, freights existing 1887,’on rail- “Rates for fares and in this shall not be increased without the consent road state vigor- December, 1888, the defendants legislature.”- late So land. Brief ously that the Hazen bill was the law of the contended *5 H. (65 393), R. R. Railroads Benton, Jr., H. in Boston etc. of J. Briefs Cases 524. 163a and vigorous oppo- and the former attitude of the state
In view of the (R. R. change policy inaugurated in 1883 Comm’rs’ the sition to pro- p. 10), expect it would be reasonable to some Rep., 1889, granted rates power the of the to increase prevent use vision N. H.] right fact. The grant. was the attached to the Such be
would the given рroviso the “that given was with unite then lease and existing August shall not be freights fares and rates for or united.” In of the roads so leased part on increased legislature: “The assur- report the commissioners the railroad and have no evidence Maine, we given by the Boston ance was existing the leased lines that the rates on showing contrary, the been increased. No increase of the lessee the roads on act of which fixed lawfully place under the could take state- August the maximum rates.” While this existing 1, as rates weight showing authority, it is of may not be an ment understanding substantially the same under which contemporary language again in 1889. was used way given why roads consolidated in one has been
No reason togеther restriction, put the same roads should be procedure exempt. The cause of by sortie other should rate-making power. It of the would consolidation restriction legislature apply intended to naturally be inferred that consolidations; and that when in the act of to all restriction on “the roads leased or united under imposed restriction was to all effected there- it,” apply understood to consolidations explanation of an is advanced in intention under. No reason generally apparently certain roads from restriction exclude although act, The defendants stand the letter of the imposed. contrary pur- to its conceding that their construction apparеntly line and Maine original Their claim relates to the pose. state, part conve- group of roads in the southeastern niently were consolidated described as the eastern roads. These Laws of chapter 5, 10 of Boston and under section with Maine pur- acquire by authorized Boston and “to roads, and the road, franchises, property” of certain chase others, being authorized purchasing roads Concord certain The section closes capital purpose. their stock for the to increase following purchases herein “After each with the sentence: enjoy all authorized, corporations said shall have purchasing enjoyed rights, and franchises theretofore had and privileges, language implies selling argued It is that this corporations.” such was the condition freedom from the restriction because rights all the selling sale, and that a transfer of corporations before unre- selling corporations transferred their privileges language shows right of this rates. But the source stricted make *6 State Railroad. meaning original ascribed to that no such can be it. The statute legislature amending, general which which the was contained the provisions corporation, for union the formation of a new after authorizing provides corporation such action the new “shall franchises, property, rights powers, privileges, have all the every corporations fоrming ... such union.” kind of the corporation given s. 17. new Such subject powers old, proviso rates; to the as to and the same powers must language used in 1889 be construed transfer the selling corporations, to the of the act. The limitations substantially language tendency repetition of the same has some merely purchase that the method of was considered another to show practical uniting corporations. two or more In the execu- form of only provisions, material difference seems to have tion uniting corpora- that in the one case the stockholders been exchange corporation, stock for stock in a new tions each their selling corporation receive while in the other the stockholders stock, purchasing corporation. stock in the for their See agreements printed reports for consolidation in the various railroad commission.
Among the Boston and was authorized the roads which (the Worcester, two Nashua and Rochester purchase were Lawrence) they which held lease under the Manchester why suggested has law of 1883. No reason been should roads from the restrictions of the been intended to relieve these authorizing 1883, by law of more intimate consolidation. parallel across roads in constitute three somewhat routes They competing places. at some An the state. are rival roads it would intent restriction from the roads to remove the by argument from place be most it is not to be inferred natural ' 13 of the act is: provisions inserted for other reasons. Section by this act any lease, union, purchase authorized “Whenever . . . shall be filed in the effected, copies shall be of the votes recog- secretary state.” And it is said the statute office of the “unification” of thereby methods which the nizes different corporations, pur- accomplished: could be union railroads statute or, simpler language, it in true; putting chase. That is uniting by lease, union, railroads; provides three methods it, imposed. purchase. If are united under restriction formed The restriction is not limited corporations. The eastern roads are united with union of two N. HJ *7 English language commonly is used Maine, as the
Boston and authority giving a technical No can be found understood. consolidation, meaning word “united” the law of railroad a new confine it to unions which create which will meaning enlarge and one its unions which continue exclude from defend- corporations. The construction contended for contrary statute and to the letter and the intent of the ants be sustained. cannot original Maine is a road united with others
As the Boston and unnecessary whether as a 1889, act it is to consider under the of thereby act it is to the restrictions lessee under that road upon rates were less in 1883 that road than imposed. And unless 1889, equally unnecessary whether, to consider were in 1883, the limitations as a lessee under the statute of of road apply. act any provided right that the specially
As it was road unite legislation, impaired should not be under the second lease right ground is the existence of the to make the taken the by particular has made roads with the Bos- combination that been validity lease or union there ton and To entire a Maine. legally given corporate two the assent of the owners essentials: only question The material this the assent of the state. branch the assent the state can be found of the case whether legislation imposing outside of the the restriction. It is conceded must look applies that the restriction to all roads leased which given legislation for the state’s аssent. This consent could be legislature authorizing a specially an act of the lease to the Bos- only right Maine. such ton and The road which is claimed has is the and Lawrence. This road was leased to the Manchester only authority Maine, 1, 1887, Boston and June when the for it was chapter 100, Laws of 1883. The claim that the restrictions of the apply 1, chapter 301, 1887, do statute rests section Laws by which the lease was ratified and confirmed. This lease when complied prescribed made with all the terms law as conditions of the state’s assent. Neither the state nor stockholder of voted for the lease could have Lawrence who Manchester illegal, illegality maintained a suit to set it aside. If the lease was its beyond partnership did not extend its violation of the contract Boston etc. R. and Lawrence stockholders. R. Manchester H. Railroads, 65 N. 393. As the state’s assent to the lease had fully given by chapter 100, chapter 1 of been Laws of section v, ratifying confirming no added
validity against to the lease as the state. It is not that the shown assent provisions contained to which the state in lease release to rates, disclose an intent to the restrictions as 1887 would disclosing of 1887 nothing purpose. and there is in the act such (s. 9) only existing repealing repealed provisions clause such The inconsistent therewith. The lease confirmed and ratified was were suggested Laws of made under 1883. It is not lease authority сhap- for the lease. provisions that other existed parts made, Laws of therefore lease when ter were ratified, object October 1, 1887, 1887. The June when *8 (sections inclusive) 8, merely prevent was the statute to to the dissenting the lease at the suit of stock- possible destruction of holders, as was the fate of the lease of the Northern to the Boston Railroad, Dow N. H. claim and Lowell. v. 1. The defendants’ to this road is not sustained. as being made roads, of the authorized to leases
Some another, assigned have been Boston and and these leases to the to assignment by original is the Whether the authorized Maine. original a the lessor and its lease is road stockholders. to the state’s assent to lеase Boston and Whether Maine upon right gener- the road to given depends whether had the lease only a particular objecting to lessee. The ally, or stockholders may Boston Maine, a transfer of the lease to the and their assent to If could presumed. the road lease to the Boston Maine restriction, relying upon legislation imposing without indirectly is to directly immaterial whether the lease made or authorized, Maine; they if to make such Boston while were not lease, they by indirection could not do cannot do what directly, legislation imposing look and the defendants must to the authority road, operate restriction for to and of course their init therewith. operate must accordance The Concord and Portsmouth Railroad was authorized sec- 1861, to for the use or chapter 2540, Laws of “contract tion road, any part thereof, with railroad cor- operation of their connecting with Concord and Ports- now or hereafter said poration was made with the operating Under this act an contract mouth.” Railroad, defendants. assigned has been Concord which connecting road, the state’s assent is a The right This given by is this act. operation its of the Portsmouth is limited the restrictions later operation therefore not H.] only by (June 25, 1861) then legislation, prescribed, but those viz.: passengers the accommodation of shall daily “Trains for be run Portsmouth, between without detention at Concord Manches- published freight shall ter; and there be no advance on the passenger as now tariffs established Concord and Ports- between (Laws Valley mouth and intermediate stations.” Suncook The 3035), Peterborough (Laws 1869, c. c. 76), Franklin originally incorporated and Tilton, as the Tilton and Franklin (Laws 220; 2), being c. s. authorized to subjected corporation, lease to railroad are not restric- question upon tions a direct lease to indirect the Boston Maine. acceptance of the of a assent state lease the lessee
is important giving as as to the of a There lease lessor. greater even in this respect; reason for care concern state relates public railroad service which places Assuming, claimed, the lease with the lessee. as prohibition against only the increase of rates relates rates roads of lessor and not to road, rates the lessee clearly the case under section Statutes, against inhibition the statute is road; action the lessee only for it is power that road would have the the leased over *9 road escape after the lease. To statute, the restrictions of the the lessee must show the assent of operation the state to its expressed road through containing otherwise than the statute the restriction.
Authority conferred the Pemigewasset Valley to lease Boston, (Laws Concord and Montreаl 2) c. s. did not authorize lease directly indirectly, it to to the Boston and Maine or or accept the and operate Boston Maine to a road. lease the authority That chapter must be found in 156, Public Statutes. and Peterborough Shirley Nashua Lowell and the seem and to in the authority be same situation. No is found a lease these roads to the Boston Lowell Fitchburg respectively, and the and it that there none for follows their indirect to and lease operation by direct the Maine, except Boston and the laws 1889, and the Public appear Statutes. Both of roads to these been authorized to unite form corporation, a new with one (Laws 101), Boston and Lowell 1874, c. other with Fitchburg (Laws 2558). 1861, c. The сase states that the union was Hampshire legisla- lease of the in New road each case. If this leases to the Boston and Lowell and to the
tion authorized the Fitchburg, a it did not authorize lease to the Boston and Maine. moreover, record, matter appears, It to be the case Lowell, parties advantage took Nashua and law immediately thereafter re-executed the lease between 1883 and p. Rep., 1889, R. them. R. Comm’rs’ (Laws River after its union with the Ashuelot The Connecticut 201) Fitchburg after its union with the Cheshire 1889, c. any 4) as (Laws 1887, 257, rates, s. not under restriction c. were authorizing corporation, nothing act new but there is either road, to and Maine or Hampshire as a New lease to corрoration. The Monadnock Railroad was authorized other directly (Laws 1869, 73) c. lease railroad could lease July 26, 1892, indirectly The case states that to the defendants. Fitchburg and consoli- Railroad became united the consolidated Monadnock, Fitchburg name of the with the under the dated this union understood Company. Railroad Whether was Statutes, chapter 156, Public or under section or was effected under 1887, authorizing the Cheshire to unite chapter appear corporations, is immaterial. with one or more does not unnecessary also to consider the claim that since both the It is (Laws (Laws 2) c. s. 1887, 257, the Monadnock Cheshire Fitchburg power consolidated road had 73) had the concerned; for the defend- power Hampshire so far as New that, of the lease to the Boston and ants’ brief discloses on date Fitchburg of the roads named and twa Maine, composed Hampshire railroads, the Brookline and the Brookline other New were into new with Milford, which consolidated Fitchburg existed, as it then under Statutes. Rep., 1895, p. effect the fact that R. R. Comm’rs’ 231. Whatever not in and the Brookline and Milford were the Brookline July may (a point con- 24, 1889, have as to those lines hereinafter difficulty road, Fitchburg sidered), the does affect the other thereby passed possession existed, then “into *10 corporations.” by the union of two or more new formed (the Monadnock), 42, As to that road old and the section Chеshire chapter Statutes, terms, in and the restriction 156, applies Public and Maine under the not released the lease to the Boston was chapter. same possession operate, of and which the defendants have
Three roads 1883, 1889, laws or under the of the under leases executed N.H.] they a formally them, have lease of not leased to but
Statutes, substantially the stock from lessor roads which owned or all all County,* they Claremont, and the Sullivan it; are the Concord By Laws of Acton. section and and Nashua a were authorized to take lease of Con and Maine the Boston subject the restrictions that act. The Claremont, to cord and appears be that the stockholders position bеcause defendants’ possession operate take road with permitted them to have unnecessary. is Whether a formal the state’s assent out acquiescence gives, of the stockholders as and the lease the stock opera stockholders, right possession legal a against the may may The defendants or not is immaterial. of the road tion through a to the road as would have a perfect as title duly and executed. If the Boston Maine voted formal lease operation of them virtue roads, its all stock owned it not might legal illegal; be but be a ownership would such stock by anything special provisions except the or a authorized lease union was limited to the 10, chapter which of section operate Maine not therein. But the Boston and does roads named ownership, but of a virtue of stock virtue lease the roads not assented condition. It is state dis stock which under hold the three roads leases which puted the defendants that restriction, in given was with restriction. That state’s assent exception, applies all the roads special which the the absence of operate It is the defendants to and control. conceded leases enable is Manchester and Keene restrictions of that holding one half 1889, the Boston and virtue 1883 and in and Lowell 1887 and one half under a of a lease of the Boston only query in and Montreal 1895. The is lease the Concord apply. appear does rates of It whether the change If in the rates between 1883 and 1889. there was leases, dependent upon right of both which control perhaps might appear inferred not the does not Railroads, 393, 396, 399), H. (Boston etc. R. R. v. 65 N. fact govern. greater must restriction includes less. lower rates Montreal, joint with owners The Concord every portion only Lowell, one half the road. The owned in assuming and Montreal could make lease the Concord were lower 1889 than condi- rates hearing, opinion upon post. motion further * See *11 tion charged any that no rates should be on part of the road in owned, the Concord and Montreal every which was part, greater charged July 24, than were 1889. A lease made on such easily condition would be understood and executed. The fact that in condition is the statute rather in than the indenture of lease presents difficulty. no operation July in
Six roads were not 1889, and on that date existing there were no rates for fares freights over them. One roads, Tilton, these the Franklin and it already has been shown any is not restriction. All the remainder have been leased or consolidated so as to be subject to thé restrictions Public Statutes. It seems to be conceded that the restriction is specific particular, and that it forbids the increase of charge transportation particular of freight article above charged transportation wbiat was оf the same article in 1889. Upon concession, the restriction applied cannot be subjects or roads as to which there were no rates in existence in 1889. The question probably as to the roads is new of little importance; and as the case has court, been left the ruling is, now as to these before^the roads, against the state. For the convenience of parties, an attempt apply has been made to as well as to decide legal ques- tions involved.
The result is that Portsmouth, Concord and the Suncook Valley, Peterborough, and the Franklin and Tilton and the other put July roads since 1889, are not subject to the restrictions of remaining either act. The roads are confined to the maximum charges August 1, July Although is transferred which of governs the dates case, each argument there has been no except roads Keene, Manchester and as to which it has considered, been and the Valley, Suncook to which latter it was found applied. neither As remainder, parties it ’isassumed the are not in conflict.
Case discharged. All concurred. filing
After the opinion of the foregoing February on 11, 1911, the defendants moved for hearing. further (Oliver
Branch & Branch W. Branch orally), for the motion. Eastman, Edwin G. attorney-general, opposed. *12 H.] Upon filing C. J. of foregoing opinion, the
Parsons, for hearing defendants moved further County as to the Sullivan Railroad, and by agreement additional facts presented were for appears consideration. It now that all the stock of the Sullivan County by Vallеy Railroad is owned the Vermont Railroad, a Ver- corporation; mont Valley 1880 the Vermont Railroad, owners of the Sullivan County, entered into a for contract its operation with the Railroad, Connecticut River a Massachusetts cor- poration; that under the lease the Connecticut River to the Bos- Maine, ton and the Boston and Maine assumed the contract of the Connecticut River with the Valley, Vermont and it is claimed is operating now County Sullivan thereunder without reference 1883, 1889, to the or provisions laws of the Public Statutes empowering one railroad to By lease another. the consolidation of the Connecticut River with the Ashuelot under the act of 1889 (c. 201), corporation the former or corporation the new became subject to the Hampshire laws New as to so much of its road as lay in right this But the state. under which the Boston Maine, by virtue of its lease of the River, operate Connecticut claims to County right Sullivan is a River antedating any Connecticut subjection of that Hampshire. laws New right, That if there is such right, power rests on the owner all the stock of a railroad to amake contract with another for the execution of its franchise.
Whether this contract made in validity 1880 is of not, is clear it is not a contract lease or union made under the laws of 1883, 1889, or the Public Statutes of 1891. There is no claim that contract was validated legislation. Upon questions presented for deсision agreed case, it is immaterial whether the contract of legal 1880 is or illegal. The state is insisting now upon the enforcement of the legislation restrictions of the 1891, upon roads leased or united under it. To make out case, state’s appear it must that the lease or union was effected in the powers execution of or in enjoyment of privileges thereby conferred. If the contract of 1880 is one the Sullivan County had power make, rights acquired no under it are affected the later legislation. If contrary law, of the road Boston and Maine is legal without equally warrant and without the terms of the enabling acts. Under Statutes, Public County the Sullivan can lease its railroad to the Boston and Maine. It has not done so. Railway. Dorr nothing
Claiming statute, under the defendants are being restrictions. is affected its Whether what done is in vio- investigation law, properly pre- lation when proceeding, in this some other should attorney-general sented stated, County As the to interfere. facts now the Sullivan see fit 42, chapter 156, is not the restrictions of Railroad within section opinion heretofore filed modified Statutes. to that extent. discharged.
Case *13 concurred. All Rockingham,) 6, 1911
June . Railway. Adm’r, v. Atlantic
Dorr, Line Shore speed ran an electric car at a of fifteen miles an hour that a motorman Evidence safety highways, taking precautions junction for the without at crossing finding negligence might point, at that warrants a who be travelers part. on his resulting years negligence in the deаth of a and a for child five half action In an plaintiff to show from old, not incumbent infant’s freedom it is fault. injury to the cause of his an accident as is admis- the victim A statement principal with the fact in issue as to evidence when so connected sible given part it; whether such a declaration should be admitted in a a form largely court, upon determined the trial consid- a case of all the
eration circumstances.disclosed. injuries plaintiff's personal resulting in the death of the for Case, by jury plaintiff. and verdict for Transferred Trial intestate. term, superior Chamber- court the October from exceptions to the denial of motion lin, J., on the defendants' declaration to the admission of evidence of the for a nonsuit after intestate, made about ten minutes the accident home, that the car had carried to his effect ran he been after him. over plaintiff. Harding Hatch, &
Kelley, & defendants. Hughes, Kivel