Appeal of N.Y., N. H. & H. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 November 1902
• Citation: 75 Conn. 264,53 A. 314
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Appeal of NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

53 A. 314

75 Conn. 264

Appeal of NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 11, 1902.

Appeal from superior court, Litchfield county; Alberto T. Roraback, Judge.

Petition of the selectmen of the town of Plymouth to the railroad commissioners to compel a change of grade in a highway in said town at a point where it was crossed at grade by the railroad of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. The commissioners ordered the highway to be carried under the railroad, three-quarters of the expense to fall on the railroad company and the rest on the town. From this order the railroad company appealed to the superior court for Litchfield county where the Bristol & Plainville Tramway Company was made a party, and on a hearing had to the court a judgment was rendered confirming the order for a change of grade, except that the cost to the railroad company was reduced to half the total expense, the town and the tramway company each to pay a quarter. The railroad company appeals. Affirmed.

William F. Henney, for appellant New York, N. H. & H. R Co.

Noble E. Pierce and Marcus H. Holcomb, for respondent Bristol & Plainville Tramway Co.

Samuel A. Herman, for respondent Town of Plymouth.

BALDWIN, J. The appellant is the successor in title to a railroad company which laid several tracks across an existing highway at grade. One of these is a spur track, leading to a warehouse owned by private individuals, and on which the appellant also was in the habit of placing cars from which to deliver goods to other parties. This diverges from the main tracks at a point several hundred feet distant from the highway. The order appealed from requires the construction of two bridges under which the highway is to be carried. One of them is solely for the support of the spur track, and will be over 70 feet distant from the other. At the hearing in the superior court the appellant claimed that the expense of the change of grade asked for would be so great that no change should be ordered, and included in its estimate of such expense the cost of the bridge for the spur track. Such a bridge will cost about $5,000, and the appellant now claims that the court had no jurisdiction to order one, since this track was laid simply to facilitate business with the owner of a particular warehouse. The finding does not support this claim. It shows that the track is also used for the delivery of goods to other parties, and that it is part of the...