Anderson v. McCann

Summary

Taxpayer-plaintiffs sought to enjoin Manchester officials and the Manchester Housing Authority from performing contracts for the Granite Street Development Project, arguing that the arrangements violated parts II, articles 5 and 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the redevelopment project served a valid public purpose and was not barred by those constitutional provisions, and it declined to consider a challenge to related revenue bonds that had not been raised below.

Holdings

1. Contracts for a redevelopment project serving a valid public purpose are not barred by part II, articles 5 and 83 merely because private interests receive incidental benefits. The Granite Street Development Project served a valid public purpose and therefore was not unconstitutional under those provisions.
2. The plaintiffs were barred from raising the validity of the revenue bonds on appeal because they expressly declined to challenge the bonds in the Superior Court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Granite Street Development Project contracts violated part II, article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution by giving or lending public money or credit for the benefit of a private profit-making corporation.
2. Whether the contracts violated part II, article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution concerning monopolies, combinations, conspiracies, and unfair means of impairing free and fair competition.
3. Whether the plaintiffs could challenge the validity of revenue bonds on appeal after expressly declining to challenge the bonds in the Superior Court.

Disposition

affirmed