Adams v. Vaill

• Citation: 262 A.2d 169,158 Conn. 478
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 13 November 1969
• Parties: Ann ADAMS et al. v. B. Franklin VAILL et al.

Page 169

262 A.2d 169

158 Conn. 478

Ann ADAMS et al. v. B. Franklin VAILL et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Nov. 13, 1969.

Paul Smith, Torrington, with whom was Alexander M. Hart, Torrington, for appellant (defendant The Lime Rock Corporation).

Bourke G. Spellacy, Hartford, with whom was Stuart N. Updike, Hartford, for appellees (plaintiffs).

Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.

HOUSE, Associate Justice.

This action was commenced in 1958 with the plaintiffs' complaint that the operation by the defendant The Lime Rock Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, of a track for the racing of automobiles 'generally without mufflers or other devices to silence the exhaust from such engines' constituted 'a nuisance and irreparable injury' to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to abate the alleged nuisance. The court (Shea, J.) filed a memorandum of decision which noted: 'The noise becomes irritating, annoying, and disturbing to the comfort of the community when the race track is used by unmufflered engines for an extended number of hours. In fact, there is little or no complaint to be made against the operations upon the track when it is used by vehicles which are mufflered.' On May 12, 1959, the court rendered judgment finding the issues for the plaintiffs and enjoining sports car racing upon the track in violation of certain specifically enumerated limitations and restrictions.

The injunction prohibited all activity upon the track on Sundays. It permitted 'mufflered activity' on any weekday between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. with the proviso that on not more than six occasions in any one calendar year such activity might continue beyond 10 p.m. It expressly provided that '(p) ermissible mufflers are those which meet the standards set forth in Section 14-80(c) of the General Statutes of Connecticut, Revision of 1959, or as the same may be amended from time to time.' The decree then specified the times when '(a)ctivity with unmufflered engines may be permitted.' Without our reciting the precise details, it suffices to note that the decree permitted activity with unmufflered engines between noon and 6 p.m. on Tuesday of each week, between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on ten Saturdays a year, between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on the Friday preceding each of the ten selected Saturdays, and between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July and Labor Day.

In March, 1966, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the court amended the decree to define more precisely what sports car racing activities were proscribed and what were permitted. The amended decree made no significant changes in the times when the use of mufflered and unmufflered racing cars were permitted and, as in the original decree, referred to General Statutes § 14-80(c) 'as the same may be amended from time to time' as the standard for determining what mufflers are 'permissible.'

Until 1967, § 14-80(c) of the General Statutes not only required that each motor vehicle operated by an internal combustion engine be equipped with a muffler or mufflers designed to prevent excessive, unusual or unnecessary exhaust noise, 'which muffler or mufflers shall be maintained by the owner in good working order and in constant operation' but also provided that '(n)o person shall use upon a motor vehicle a muffler or mufflers lacking interior baffle plates or other effective muffling devices, a gutted muffler, a muffler cut out or a straight exhaust while such motor vehicle is being operated upon a street or highway.' In 1967, the General Assembly by Public Act No. 846 amended this latter sentence (contained in § 14-80(c)) by inter alia, deleting the words 'while such motor vehicle is being operated upon a street or highway.' The 1967 amendment made no change in the express requirement that the muffling device required on all internal combustion engines 'shall be maintained by the owner in good working order and in constant operation.' It did, on the other hand, add a provision that no person, including an owner or repairer 'shall remove all or part of any muffler on a motor vehicle except to repair or replace such muffler or part for the more effective prevention of noise.' Public Acts 1967, No. 846.

In July, 1968, after the effective date of No. 846 of the 1967 Public Acts, the plaintiffs moved for a modification of the 'judgment and Injunctive Order' of March 2, 1966, to prohibit the operation and use of unmufflered motor vehicles on the Lime Rock Race Track since, they contended, the statutes now clearly prohibited the operation and use of an unmufflered motor vehicle not only upon streets and highways but anywhere in the state.

The court (Wall, J.), after reciting the 1959 injunction, its modification in 1966, the plaintiffs' 1968 motion for modification, that the parties appeared and were at issue, and that the court found the issues for the plaintiffs, rendered judgment modifying the 1966 injunction to prohibit the operation and use of unmufflered motor vehicles on the defendant's track and ordering the defendant to cease and desist immediately from sponsoring the racing of unmufflered vehicles. It is from this judgment and modification of the injuncton that the defendant has taken the present appeal.

It cannot be doubted that courts have inherent power to change or modify their own injunctions where circumstances or pertinent law have so changed as to make it equitable to do so. System Federation, etc. v. Wright,364 U.S. 642, 647, 81 S.Ct. 368, 5 L.Ed.2d 349; Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 494, 234 A.2d 825; Ladner v. Siegel,298 Pa. 487, 148 A. 699, 68 A.L.R. 1172; 42 Am.Jur.2d 1140, Injunctions, § 334; see also notes, 136 A.L.R. 765; 68 A.L.R. 1180; 78 Harv.L.Rev. 994, 1080; 46 Mich.L.Rev. 241. The action of the General Assembly in 1967 not only left unchanged the requirement that each motor vehicle operated by an internal combustion engine be provided with a muffler which shall be maintained by the owner 'in good working order and in constant operation' but extended the scope of the express prohibition against the use of motor vehicle without effective muffling devices by removing the original statutory provision limiting the prohibition against their use to streets and highways.

We have had recent occasion to repeat the rules applicable to the construction of statutes. It is the expressed intent of the legislature which controls, and that intent is to be found in the meaning of what it says. Little v. Ives, 158 Conn. 452, 262 A.2d 174; State v. Moore, 158 Conn. 262 A.2d 166. 'It is a rule of statutory construction that the legislature is presumed to know all the existing statutes and that when it enacts a law it does so in view of existing relevant ...