[DOWNLOAD] "General Outdoor Advertising Co. v." by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: General Outdoor Advertising Co. v.
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 10, 1935
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 111 KB
Description
RUGG, Chief Justice. These are fifteen suits in equity. The plaintiffs are resident and nonresident individuals, firms and
corporations, all licensed under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 93, § 29, and engaged in the business of outdoor advertising.
That business is the procurement of locations on private property within public view for signs, billboards and other devices
which the plaintiffs erect and maintain and upon which they rent space for advertising purposes to manufacturers, merchants
and others, many of whom are doing business in other states as well as within the commonwealth. The defendants in fourteen
suits are the commissioner and associate commissioners who have supervision and control of the department of public works
of the commonwealth. See G. L. c. 16, §§ 1, 2; c. 93, § 29; St. 1927, c. 297; G. L. [Ter. Ed.]
c. 16, § 2; c. 93, § 29. The one of these suits by the plaintiff Brink relates to an electrical sign on
the roof of a building near the State House and the Common in Boston; the others relate to billboards and advertising devices
in different parts of the commonwealth. In the remaining suit the selectmen and other officers of the town of Concord are
the defendants. The object of the several suits is to obtain decrees to the effect that all and certain parts of the rules
and regulations promulgated by the department of public works and a certain by-law adopted by the town of Concord restricting
outdoor advertising upon private property within public view are void, unconstitutional and of no effect. There are no averments
concerning advertising by the plaintiffs within public ways or in public places, nor as painted or affixed upon any rock,
tree or pole; therefore, those subjects need not be considered. See Commonwealth v. McCafferty, 145 Mass. 384, 14 N.E. 451;
Commonwealth v. Haffer, 279 Mass. 73, 180 N.E. 615; Fifth Avenue Coach Co. v. New York, 221 U. S. 467, 31 S. Ct. 709, 55 L.
Ed. 815. There are adequate allegations of impending property damage to the plaintiffs likely to arise from the enforcement
of the rules and regulations and the by-law. Shuman v. Gilbert, 229 Mass. 225, 227, 228, 118 N.E. 254, L. R. A. 1918C, 135,
Ann. Cas. 1918E, 793. There are prayers for full injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from interfering in any way
with the business of the plaintiffs. Injunctions were issued, pending the trial and final Disposition of the suits, against
the disturbance of any existing signs, billboards and other advertising devices of the plaintiffs. The decision of the principal issues rests upon the meaning of article 50 of the Amendments to the Constitution, the scope
of statutes enacted under the power conferred by that amendment and the validity of rules and regulations promulgated by the
department of public works and of a by-law adopted by Concord pursuant to such statutes. Other questions arise respecting
the action of the commissioners of the department of public works and as to the conduct of the hearings by the master to whom
the cases were referred.