Williams v. East Wareham, Onset Bay, & Point Independence Street Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Williams v. East Wareham, Onset Bay, & Point Independence Street Railway Co.

50 N.E. 646, 171 Mass. 61, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 13

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 18, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 N.E. 646 (Williams v. East Wareham, Onset Bay, & Point Independence Street Railway Co.) 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

Williams v. East Wareham, Onset Bay, & Point Independence Street Railway Co., 50 N.E. 646, 171 Mass. 61, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 13 (Mass. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Field, C. J.

We are of opinion that, on the facts stated in the bill, the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. The street railway company is, we think, a corporation authorized to receive toll, within the meaning of Pub. Sts. c. 105, §§ 30-35. In this respect, we cannot distinguish it from a railroad corporation. See Pub. Sts. c. 113, §§ 43 et seq.; Simmons v. Worthington, 170 Mass. 203. The remedy of the plaintiff is therefore by a levy of his execution upon the franchise of the company and upon the rights and privileges of the company thereunder, “ so far as [they] relate to the receiving of toll,” and upon “ all other corporate property real and personal,” and by a sale thereof pursuant to Pub. Sts. c. 105, §§ 31 et seq. After having levied the execu[64]*64tion, if the plaintiff or the purchaser at the sale contends that there is nothing justly due from the company to Butler or to Benson, who have brought suits against the company and attached its property therein, the plaintiff or such purchaser can proceed under Pub. Sts. c. 161, §§ 110 et seq., to try the validity of the attachments in those suits.

Demurrer sustained, and hill dismissed.

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

Field, C. J.

We are of opinion that, on the facts stated in the bill, the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. The street railway company is, we think, a corporation authorized to receive toll, within the meaning of Pub. Sts. c. 105, §§ 30-35. In this respect, we cannot distinguish it from a railroad corporation. See Pub. Sts. c. 113, §§ 43 et seq.; Simmons v. Worthington, 170 Mass. 203. The remedy of the plaintiff is therefore by a levy of his execution upon the franchise of the company and upon the rights and privileges of the company thereunder, “ so far as [they] relate to the receiving of toll,” and upon “ all other corporate property real and personal,” and by a sale thereof pursuant to Pub. Sts. c. 105, §§ 31 et seq. After having levied the execu[64]*64tion, if the plaintiff or the purchaser at the sale contends that there is nothing justly due from the company to Butler or to Benson, who have brought suits against the company and attached its property therein, the plaintiff or such purchaser can proceed under Pub. Sts. c. 161, §§ 110 et seq., to try the validity of the attachments in those suits.

Demurrer sustained, and hill dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.E. 646, 171 Mass. 61, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-east-wareham-onset-bay-point-independence-street-railway-mass-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack