Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Trust Territory v Saipan Bus Company [1965] TTLawRp 16; 3 TTR 76 (30 December 1965)

3 TTR 76

TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS,
Plaintiff

v.

SAIPAN BUS COMPANY, MUNICIPALITY OF SAIPAN, and SAIPAN BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION,
Defendants

Civil Action No. 152
Trial Division of the High Court
Mariana Islands District

December 30, 1965

Action to enjoin defendant Municipality and defendant Association from operating public transportation service on Saipan during life of plaintiffs franchise with defendant Bus Company. Plaintiff claims unlawful and fraudulent interference with enjoyment of franchise and defendants claim their operation was private service and that franchise was illegal and not properly authorized. The Trial Division of the High Court, Chief Justice E. P. Furber, held that defendant's activities constitute public transportation, requiring public utility license, and that Franchise Agreement between plaintiff and Bus Company, although invalid as a franchise, constitutes valid permit under Trust Territory law.

1. Fraud - Generally

Fraud as considered in equity matters regularly involves deceiving person to his disadvantage and is not to be presumed without good cause.

2. Fraud - Generally

Honest misrepresentations of law, or of what courts finally decide law to be, will not ordinarily form basis of valid claim for fraud.

3. Torts - Malice

Malice in relation to tort or civil wrong regularly involves wrongful act, intentionally done without justification or excuse, or wish to injure regardless of social duty and rights of others.

4. Torts - Interference with Contractual Relations

Where acts of party were entered into deliberately and hurt business of another, acts could be considered to have been done with implied malice or "malice in law" if done without justification or excuse.

5. Torts - Malice

Where malice is necessary for liability or equitable relief, this does not necessarily involve any element of ill will or hatred.

6. Torts - Interference with Contractual Relations

Implied malice can be understood as liability for purposely causing third person to break a contract, unless one is in position which gives him privilege to do so.

7. Torts - Interference with Contractual Relations

Considerations of public health, morals and welfare are ordinarily held to be justification for interference with another's contract, and whether such justification exists is largely question of fact, the standard being reasonable conduct under all the circumstances.

8. Municipalities - Generally

Municipal officials and civic leaders have legitimate interest in trying to protect welfare of fellow-residents, particularly those in lower income brackets, and trying to see that charges for public utility services are reasonable.

9. Municipalities – Generally

Municipality and local betterment association are justified or privileged in trying by lawful means to have community services provided at lower cost to riders than offered by franchised bus company.

10. Franchise - Generally