State v. Suffield & Thompsonville Bridge Co.

Citation70 A. 55,81 Conn. 56
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Decision Date30 June 1908
PartiesSTATE v. SUFFIELD & THOMPSONVILLE BRIDGE CO. et al.

Case Reversed from Superior Court, Hartford County; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.

Proceedings by the state against the Suffield & Thompsonville Bridge Company and others to condemn certain toll bridge properties for the purpose of establishing public highways. Case reserved for the Supreme Court upon report of the committee appointed to assess compensation, and remonstrance of the named defendant to the report. Superior court advised to sustain remonstrance and recommit report for a rehearing de novo, with instructions.

Prior to 1889 the Enfield Bridge Company, chartered in 1798, possessed, by virtue of its charter, the exclusive right, within the limits therein specified, of maintaining a toll bridge across the Connecticut river, connecting the towns of Suffield and Enfield; and there also existed an ancient ferry franchise, owned by private persons, for maintaining a ferry across said river at Thompsonville in said town of Enfield. In 1889 the Legislature granted a charter to the defendant, the Suffield & Thompsonville Bridge Company, authorizing it to construct and maintain a toll bridge across said river connecting the towns of Enfield and Suffield. Sp. Laws 1889, p. 1207. Sections 4, 8, and 9 of said charter were as follows:

"Sec. 4. Said corporation shall pay all damages occasioned to the property of any person or corporation, including the Enfield Bridge Company, or to the proprietors of the ferry at Thompsonville, which they may sustain by reason of the construction and maintenance of said bridge, and unless said damages shall be agreed upon by the parties they shall be assessed by a committee to be appointed by the superior court at Hartford on application of the company hereby incorporated or by any person or corporation sustaining such damages which application shall be accompanied by a summons to be served upon the parties interested as is required in cases of civil processes before said court; provided, however, that in case of amicable agreement, or otherwise, the said Enfield Bridge Company and the proprietors of said ferry may subscribe for and hold capital stock in the company hereby incorporated in amount less or equal to the amount of damages agreed upon or found in each case, and stock so subscribed shall be treated as stock paid for in cash."

"Sec. 8. The towns of Enfield and Suffield may, at legal meetings called for that purpose, vote to lay out a public highway across said bridge and when both said towns shall have so voted the selectmen of said towns shall join in an application to the superior court for Hartford county praying for the laying out of said highway, which application shall be duly served on said corporation, and the court shall appoint a committee which shall proceed in the manner provided by statute for the laying out of highways in towns.

"Sec. 9. Said committee shall, if it finds said highway will be of common convenience and necessity, appraise and award to said corporation as damages the value of said bridge and appurtenant property, and also such amounts as have been paid as damages to the owners of said ferry, and said Enfield Bridge Company, and such other damages as the corporation hereby formed shall suffer from said taking of said property, but no damages shall be allowed to the company for the franchise created by this resolution."

In pursuance of this charter the corporation constructed a toll bridge, which it has since maintained and now owns. In 1907, beside the toll bridge in question, there was a toll bridge across the Connecticut river between East Windsor and Windsor Locks, and one between Middletown and Portland, and also a toll bridge across the Niantic river between East Lyme and Waterford; each being owned by a corporation. In that year the Legislature passed an act for the establishment of free public highways across the Connecticut and Niantic rivers, and for the condemnation of each of said four toll bridges, namely, the bridge between East Windsor and Windsor Locks, the bridge between Portland and Middletown, the bridge between East Lyme and Waterford, and the bridge in question, between Enfield and Suffield. Pub. Acts 1907, p. 871, c. 258. The act provides that the Attorney General shall bring, in the name of the state, petitions to the superior court in the several counties in which said toll bridges are respectively located for the ascertainment of the compensation to be paid each corporation owning each of said four bridges, and prescribes the mode of proceeding, upon each of said petitions. In section 1 the act provides as follows: "Upon such petition said court shall appoint a committee of three disinterested men who, after being sworn and giving reasonable notice to the parties, shall examine the property proposed to be taken, ascertain the value thereof, including the value of the franchise of any corporation the property of which is to be taken, and the damage accruing from such taking to any other property of such corporation, except that no damage shall be assessed for the franchise of the Suffield and Thompsonville Bridge Company as provided in the charter of said corporation, and shall assess such sum in favor of the owners of said property as will justly compensate them therefor." Page 872.

The present proceeding was brought by the Attorney General pursuant to the aforesaid act. Upon due notice, the defendant, the Suffield & Thompsonville Bridge Company, appeared, and all other persons interested in said proceeding made default of appearance. The court, having heard the plaintiff and said defendant, adjudged that the state take said bridge to be its property as and for the purpose provided in said act, and appointed three disinterested men (naming them) "a committee, who, after being sworn and giving reasonable notice to the parties, shall examine the said bridge, its approaches, and appurtenances, the property proposed to be taken, ascertain the value thereof, excluding the franchise of said corporation, as provided in the charter of said corporation, and the damage, if any, accruing from said taking to any other property of said corporation, other than to its said franchise, and who shall assess in favor of the owners of said bridge, approaches, and appurtenances such sum as will justly compensate them therefor."

On April 25, 1908, the committee filed its report, in which it assesses as compensation and damages to the defendant the sum of $66,050.73, which amount it finds to be the value of all the property of the defendant proposed to be taken by ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State ex rel. Bruenting Realty Company v. Thomas
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 26, 1919
    ...412; Stein v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 132 Ky. 330; Pac. P. Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Oregon Ry. Co., 163 F. 969; State v. Sheffield & Thompsonville Bridge Co., 81 Conn. 56; Re Brooklyn, N.Y. 596; Red River Bridge Co. v. Clarksville, 33 Tenn. (1 Sneed) 176; Long Island Water Supply Co. v. ......
  • Gray Line Bus Co. v. Greater Bridgeport Transit Dist.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • September 21, 1982
    ...Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 328-29, 13 S.Ct. 622, 627, 37 L.Ed. 463 (1893); State v. Suffield & Thompsonville Bridge Co., 81 Conn. 56, 62, 70 A. 55 (1908); Enfield Tollbridge Co. v. Hartford & New Haven R. Co., 17 Conn. 454, 462 (1846). On the other hand, a public body in......
  • Middletown Commercial Associates Ltd. Partnership v. City of Middletown
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • August 6, 1996
    ...Gray Line Bus Co. v. Greater Bridgeport Transit District, 188 Conn. 417, 423, 449 A.2d 1036 (1982), and State v. Suffield & Thompsonville Bridge Co., 81 Conn. 56, 62, 70 A. 55 (1908). No analysis is offered as to how the plaintiffs' contract rights here are akin to a franchise. We would dec......
  • Conners v. City of New Haven
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 11, 1924
    ...... public works did not state that an appropriation had been. made to pay for the lands proposed to be ...Co. v. City of Norwich, 76 Conn. 573, 57 A. 746; State v. Suffield & Thompsonville Bridge Co.,. 81 Conn. 62, 70 A. 55; Hartford v. Maslen, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT