Search

Reports on the ruling of a court in Massachusetts on a case regarding the validity of a contract between Nashua River Paper Co. and Hammermill Paper Co. which contains a stipulation that no action should be maintainable against the foreign corporation except in certain courts of the foreign state. Reason behind the ruling of the court; Other court cases with similar ruling.

This article presents information on the competition prevalent in Boston regarding the supply of gas. First, however, some further reference should be made to the contracts for the public lighting. The much- vaunted contract of February, 1893, with the Brookline Company, had fixed a price of seventy cents for public lighting in Boston and it goes almost without saying that, after this contract, the other companies had to reduce their charges for public lighting. They made new contracts with the city on August 17, 1893, at prices much lower than they had charged before, but in no case so low as those of the Brookline Company. These contracts with the other companies differed from that with the Brookline Company in providing for coal gas of not less than 18 candle power instead of water gas of 25 candle power. During all these years the prices of gas securities were based on rumors and counter-rumors of deals, combinations, compromises, litigations, and threatened receiverships. It was plain almost from the beginning that, if the struggle were to be carried to the point of actual bankruptcy, the Brookline Company, both because of its comparatively simple legal organization and its financial strength, would come out victorious.

The article presents a summary of the United States District Court Decision, District of Connecticut, in the case of Vivian Marie Thompson vs. Bernard Shapiro, Commissioner of Welfare of the State of Connecticut. In June of 1966, a U S. citizen (Vivian Marie Thompson) moved from Boston, Massachusetts, to Hanford, Connecticut, in order to Jive near her family. This woman, the mother of two children, bad been receiving AFDC from the City of Boston, which discontinued this assistance in September because of her change of residence. The court in its decision said that `what we do have is a claim that a state may not discriminate by arbitrarily classifying those who shall and chose who shall not be provided with aid, because such discrimination violates rights guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.' The court struck down the Connecticut statute in question and awarded the denied applicant the monies unconstitutionally withheld.