[Download] "Public Service Company v. State" by Supreme Court of New Hampshire # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Public Service Company v. State
- Author : Supreme Court of New Hampshire
- Release Date : January 07, 1959
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
The plaintiff electric utility paid a franchise tax to the State under protest which upon appeal was determined to be unlawfully
levied under an unconstitutional statute. RSA ch. 83. Public Service Co. v. State, 101 N.H. 154. The amount of this tax was
refunded by the State to the utility without interest, and the issue to be decided in this case is whether the State is liable
for interest on a franchise tax refund. Although the doctrine of sovereign immunity has been subjected to a barrage of cogent criticism from commentators over a
long period of time, the doctrine still survives with considerable vitality except as modified by federal or state legislation.
Wiseman v. State, 98 N.H. 393; Moore v. Dailey, 97 N.H. 278. See Third Report of N.H. Judicial Council, p. 40 (1950) and Fourth
Report of N.H. Judicial Council, p. 34 (1952) which recommended legislation permitting judgments to be rendered against the
State in actions founded on express and implied contracts enacted as RSA 491:8. In a survey of the doctrine of sovereign immunity
in the states, New Hampshire was classified in the following manner: "Consistent adherence to the standard view that neither
the state nor its subdivisions may be sued without legislative consent, and strict construction of legislative consents when
given, characterize the New Hampshire law." Leflar & Kantrowitz, Tort Liability of the States, 29 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1363,
1389 (1954). This characterization was accurate when made and has been reaffirmed in subsequent decisions. Reconstruction
&c. Corp. v. Faulkner, 100 N.H. 192; Opinion of the Justices, 101 N.H. 546, and cases cited. While the doctrine of sovereign
immunity plays only a peripheral part in this decision, it is material to the extent that it is recognized that the plaintiff
can recover interest only if the Legislature has provided for it by statute, either expressly or by reasonable implication.
Manchester v. Guild, 100 N.H. 507, 511 ; Moore v. Dailey, 97 N.H. 278. Consequently, the issue before us is primarily one
of statutory construction.