From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tilton v. Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
Apr 12, 1955
113 A.2d 543 (N.H. 1955)

Opinion

No. 4401.

Argued April 5, 1955.

Decided April 12, 1955. SUPPLEMENT

MOTION, in aid of an appeal under R.L., c. 414, as amended, seeking a stay of order 6514 of the Public Utilities Commission pending determination of the appeal. The order, entered under date of December 29, 1954, upon a unanimous report of the Commission, authorizes the railroad to discontinue agency service at Tilton, and to retire the station building at that point upon condition that it provide a passenger shelter and arrangements for checking baggage. A motion for rehearing filed by the towns of Tilton and Northfield, and the Tilton chamber of commerce was denied on February 3, 1955, and they filed their appeal in this court on February 21, 1955. On February 25, 1955, the Commission approved plans for the proposed shelter upon condition that the railroad defer removal of the station and erection of the shelter until the appeal should be determined. On March 11, 1955, the Commission declined to suspend its order pending the appeal. This motion was thereafter filed on March 22, 1955.

Tiffany Osborne (Mr. Tiffany orally), for the appellants.

Orr Reno and Eugene F. Struckhoff (Mr. Struckhoff orally), for the appellee.


This motion presents the issue of whether justice requires a suspension of the Commission's order until the merits of the pending appeal can be determined. R.L., c. 414, s. 20, as amended by Laws 1951, c. 203, s. 16. Chicopee Mfg. Co. v. Public Service Co., 97 N.H. 553. From the briefs and arguments it appears that a suspension would subject the railroad to irrecoverable expense for wages which will not be payable if the Commission order remains in effect. The appellants on the other hand assert that unless a suspension is granted, the towns and the public will suffer irreparable damage. They argue that negotiations for industrial development will be discouraged, and that inconvenience and expense will result, particularly to existing industries because of the necessity of handling less than carload shipments through the Franklin Falls station, about three miles distant from the Tilton station.

Obviously the court is in no position upon this motion to determine the merits of the issues raised by the appeal. New England Tel. Tel. Co. v. State, 97 N.H. 555, 556. Unless the appeal is successfully maintained, the consequences of the order now urged as grounds for suspension, must ultimately be accepted as a part of the discontinuance of services and facilities which the Commission has found public convenience and necessity no longer require.

As we pointed out in Company v. State, 95 N.H. 353, 360, findings by the Commission are accorded a legislative presumption of reasonableness because of the Commission's "specialized assistance, and its consistent experience in regulation." While that presumption furnishes no sure guide in these interlocutory proceedings (New England Tel. Tel. Co. v. State, 97 N.H. 555, 557, supra), neither does it suggest that deliberate action by the Commission is lightly to be set aside. Whatever course is taken, inconvenience or injury may result to one party or the other.

Upon consideration of the motion and the arguments thereon, it is our opinion that justice does not require suspension of the order of the Commission.

Motion denied.


Summaries of

Tilton v. Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
Apr 12, 1955
113 A.2d 543 (N.H. 1955)
Case details for

Tilton v. Railroad

Case Details

Full title:TILTON v. BOSTON MAINE RAILROAD

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission

Date published: Apr 12, 1955

Citations

113 A.2d 543 (N.H. 1955)
113 A.2d 543

Citing Cases

Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. Whaland

The mere fact that an administrative decision may cause injury or inconvenience to the plaintiff is…

New H. Milk Dealers' Ass'n v. N.H. Milk Control Bd.

Our consideration of the briefs and oral arguments convinces us that we should steer a middle course which…