190 A.2d 414
No. 5124.Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham.Argued March 5, 1963.
Decided April 30, 1963.
Bill in equity, seeking a determination of the constitutionality of RSA 183:7 and 9 (the price fixing and licensing sections of the Milk Control law), and of the action of the Milk Control Board thereunder.
For the purposes of briefs and oral arguments this case was consolidated with No. 5110 involving the same parties and the same basic issues.
After preliminary hearing and in advance of trial the Court (Grimes, J.) reserved and transferred certain exceptions of the parties to rulings made, including denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court also transferred without ruling the following questions:
“1. Is RSA 183:7 constitutional?
“2. Was the plaintiff required by RSA 183:9 before selling milk over the counter in its own stores to have any licenses in addition to the ones which were issued to it on October 28, 1962?
“3. Was the evidence before the Milk Control Board at the hearings of July 10, 1962, and September 25, 1962, sufficient to support its findings and orders made thereafter?
“4. Was the Milk Control Board legally entitled to make the rules that it did for the conduct of the hearings and are the determinations made following the hearings conducted in accordance with those rules valid?”
The pertinent facts are set forth in No. 5110 decided this day.
Burns, Bryant Hinchey and E. Paul Kelly, Robert F. McNeil (of Massachusetts), and Alfred B. Stapleton (of Rhode Island), (Mr. Kelly orally), for the plaintiff.
Page 513
William Maynard, Attorney General and Alexander J. Kalinski, Assistant Attorney General (Mr. Kalinski orally), for the defendants.
Booth, Wadleigh, Langdell, Starr Peters (Mr. Philip G. Peters orally), for New Hampshire Milk Dealers Association, as amicus curiae.
Tiffany Osborne for the Granite State Dairymen’s Association (Mr. Gordon M. Tiffany orally), as amicus curiae.
WHEELER, J.
The issues presented by the questions transferred in this case are disposed of by our decision in No. 5110, the companion case bearing the same title, decided this day, 104 N.H. 489. In summary, all of the transferred questions have been answered in that case. Accordingly there is no occasion for us to consider further the matters raised in this bill in equity. On the basis of the decision in No. 5110, the order in this case is
Bill dismissed.
All concurred.