Piper v. Meredith

251 A.2d 328, 109 N.H. 328, 1969 N.H. LEXIS 149
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMarch 20, 1969
Docket5885
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 251 A.2d 328 (Piper v. Meredith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Piper v. Meredith, 251 A.2d 328, 109 N.H. 328, 1969 N.H. LEXIS 149 (N.H. 1969).

Opinion

Griffith, J.

This is a petition for an injunction praying that the town of Meredith be temporarily and permanently enjoined from conducting a special town meeting for the purpose of enacting a proposed ordinance. The hearing on the temporary injunction was held on October 8, 1968. Following the hearing and on the same day the Trial Court (Loughlin, J.) made the following order: “The Court denies a temporary injunction, but rules that any action taken by the petitionee is violative of the requirements of Chapter 31, Sections 60-66 and is not valid under the general police power. The Court will upon request make findings of fact and rulings of law so the case may be transferred to the New Flampshire Supreme Court.”

The defendant excepted to the ruling of the Trial Court that “any action taken by the petitionee is violative of the requirements of Chapter 31, Sections 60-66, and is not valid under the general police power.” No findings of fact or rulings of law were made and defendant’s exception was reserved and transferred by the Trial Court.

The proposed ordinance recited in the preamble that it was pursuant to the authority conferred by RSA 31:60 and provided that no building should be erected in Meredith exceeding five stories or seventy-five feet in height, nor within fifty feet of any other building and if within one hundred feet of any lake not more than three stories or forty-five feet in height.

The defendant’s exception to the ruling of the Trial Court must *330 be sustained. The Superior Court has no jurisdiction to give advisory opinions. The ruling that if the ordinance were enacted it would be invalid was not within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court nor was it a necessary part of the denial of the temporary injunction. The Supreme Court is limited by the 74th Article of Part II of our Constitution in giving advisory opinions and in giving them the Justices act not as a court but as the constitutional advisors of the body requiring their opinion. Opinion of the Justices, 73 N. H. 625, 626. The bodies authorized to thus obtain opinions are limited by Article 74th to the branches of the Legislature and the Governor and Council. It has been denied consistently that there is any right to give such opinions to private litigants. Petition of Turner, 97 N. H. 449; State v. Harvey, 106 N. H. 446, 448.

It is argued that this case comes within the provisions of the declaratory judgment act. RSA 491:22. We do not agree. That act does not confer jurisdiction to give advice as to future cases. Lisbon District v. Lisbon, 85 N. H. 173, 177. The Court properly denied the injunction as it had no power to interfere with proposed legislative action. Sherburne v. Portsmouth, 72 N. H. 539. The additional statement of opinion on the proposed action of the town meeting was beyond its jurisdiction. “Binding neither the advisors nor the advised, it would be given to the public presumptively for the guidance of persons whose action, based upon it, would furnish an occasion for contesting, before us, the soundness of our advice.” School Law Manual, 63 N. H. 574, 576.

A substantial amount of the argument of both parties is devoted to the town meeting which was held the day after the temporary injunction was denied. The refusal of the Trial Court to transfer the questions arising from this meeting was correct.

Exception sustained; petition dismissed.

Lampron, J., did not sit; the others concurred.

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

Related

Contoocook Valley Sch. Dist. v. State
2025 N.H. 29 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2025)
K.A. v. D.A.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2023
Bill Duncan & a. v. State of New Hampshire & a.
166 N.H. 630 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2014)
North Country Environmental Services, Inc. v. Town of Bethlehem
843 A.2d 949 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2004)
Opinion of the Justices
842 A.2d 816 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2003)
Salem Coalition for Caution, Inc. v. Town of Salem
433 A.2d 1297 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1981)
Central Motors Corp. v. City of Pepper Pike
409 N.E.2d 258 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1979)
City of Nashua v. Gaukstern
369 A.2d 211 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1977)
State v. McPhail
362 A.2d 199 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1976)
Rochester Education Ass'n v. City of Rochester
359 A.2d 640 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1976)
Clark v. Clark
356 A.2d 660 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1976)
Timberlane Regional Education Ass'n v. State
333 A.2d 713 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1975)
Town of Bedford v. Lynch
308 A.2d 522 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1973)
State Ex Rel. Plan Commission v. LaPorte Superior Ct. No. 1
297 N.E.2d 814 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1973)
Wuelper v. University of New Hampshire
298 A.2d 747 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1972)
P I Enterprises, Inc. v. Charles J. Cataldo
457 F.2d 1012 (First Circuit, 1972)
Taylor v. Bullock
279 A.2d 585 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1971)
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Durkin
278 A.2d 477 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.2d 328, 109 N.H. 328, 1969 N.H. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piper-v-meredith-nh-1969.