Horan v. Boston Transit Commission

116 N.E. 805, 227 Mass. 142, 1917 Mass. LEXIS 1131
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 25, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 116 N.E. 805 (Horan v. Boston Transit Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Horan v. Boston Transit Commission, 116 N.E. 805, 227 Mass. 142, 1917 Mass. LEXIS 1131 (Mass. 1917).

Opinion

Braley, J.

The petitioner asks for process by mandamus to compel the respondents the Boston transit commission to construct a tunnel or subway from “a point at or near City Square to a point at, near or beyond Sullivan Square in the Charlestown district of the city of Boston” under the provisions of Spec. St. 1915, c. 293. But while they are directed to construct the tunnel, § 1 states that the provisions as to construction, payment and use are to be the same as "provided by law for the construction, payment and use of the present tunnel under Washington Street in the city of Boston.” The St. of 1902, c. 534, in so far as pertinent and material having been thus incorporated by reference, the governing statute is to be read accordingly. See St. 1907, c. 573; St. 1911, c. 741, § 8. It follows that unless the Boston Elevated Railway Company consented to execute with the commission a contract for the sole and exclusive use of the tunnel or subway for a specified term of years at an annual rental after its construction, and thereupon the voters of the municipality had accepted the Spec. St. of 1915, c. 293, the commission could not have proceeded with the work of construction. Boston v. Talbot, 206 Mass. 82. Sears v. Crocker, 184 Mass. 586. Codman v. Crocker, 203 Mssa. 146, 153, 154. The material allegations of the answer not having been traversed are to be taken as true, (R. L. c. 192, § 5,) from which it clearly appears that having been duly requested by the commission to define its position, the company declined to take action, or to enter into any contract as required by the statute.

No failure by the respondents to comply with the act is shown.

Order dismissing petition affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lydia E. Pinkham Medicine Co. v. Gove
25 N.E.2d 332 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Lowry v. Commissioner of Agriculture
18 N.E.2d 548 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 N.E. 805, 227 Mass. 142, 1917 Mass. LEXIS 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horan-v-boston-transit-commission-mass-1917.