Appeal of Norwalk St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1897 |
| Citation | 38 A. 708,69 Conn. 576 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Appeal of NORWALK ST. RY. CO. |
Motion for rehearing. Denied.
For former report, see 37 Atl. 1080.
John W. Ailing, George D. Watrous, J. Belden Hurlbutt, and Winthrop H. Perry, for the motion.
Goodwin Stoddard and Edward M. Lockwood, opposed.
The motion is denied. The appeal to Judge Hall was taken under the provision of the act of 1895 authorizing an appeal whenever the municipal authorities shall fail to notify the railroad company of their decision as prescribed, and transferring, in such event, to the court "the same powers with reference to said plan and the acceptance or modification thereof that said municipal authorities would have had under the provisions of said act" of 1893. This appeal should have been dismissed, because the court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application; and for this reason we reversed the judgment. Counsel now claim that the appeal to Judge Hall was also an appeal under the preceding provision of the act of 1895, authorizing an appeal from any "decision, denial, order, or direction," and requiring such appeal to be by petition, stating specifically the portion of such decision. etc., appealed from, and the reasons of such appeal, and urge their failure to argue this claim upon the original argument as a ground for granting the present motion. The considerations now suggested in support of their claim, as well as those in further support of the appellant's main contention, were carefully weighed before our decision was announced. We held that the appeal to Judge Hall was not taken from any decision, etc, under the first provision of the act of 1895, but was taken solely under the later provision, which we held to be invalid. The judgment of reversal simply directs the dismissal of the application to Judge Hall, for want of jurisdiction. It is not a bar to the new presentation of a plan to the city council, and a proper appeal, if occasion shall arise, under the first provision of the act of 1895.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moynahan
... ... State v. Stoddard, 126 Conn. 623, 627, 13 A.2d 586; Norwalk Street Ry. Co.'s Appeal, 69 Conn. 576, 586, 37 A. 1080. 'Our own constitution, [164 Conn. 568] like most constitutions, provides for certain ... ...
-
State v. Nardini
... ... J., and PETERS, PARSKEY, SHEA and DALY, JJ ... [187 Conn. 110] PARSKEY, Associate Justice ... This appeal by the state challenges the constitutionality of the Connecticut Sentence Review Act. General Statutes §§ 51-194 through 51-197. Having ... Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150, 154, 251 A.2d 49 (1968); Heiberger v. Clark, 148 Conn. 177, 189, 169 A.2d 652 (1961); Norwalk Street Ry. Co.'s Appeal, 69 Conn. 576, 586, 37 A. 1080 (1897). The legislature may not confer upon the judicial department legislative and ... ...
-
State v. Rodriguez
... ... The court denied the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict and this appeal followed ... On appeal the defendant claims that the trial court erred: (1) in denying his motion to dismiss the jury panel; (2) ... It was not inconsistent with the independence of the judicial department; see Norwalk Street Ry. Co.'s Appeal, 69 Conn. 576, 594, 37 A. 1080 (1897); did not regulate procedure in the Superior Courts; see State ex rel. Kelman v ... ...
-
Heiberger v. Clark
...of 1818 stripped the General Assembly of all judicial power. Norwalk Street Ry. Co.'s Appeal, 69 Conn. 576, 583, 592, 37 A. 1080, 38 A. 708, 39 L.R.A. 794; Bridgeport Public Library & Reading Room v. Burroughs Home, 85 Conn. 309, 319, 82 A. 582; Brown v. O'Connell, supra; see 1 Swift, Syste......
-
2012 Connecticut Appellate Review
...at 140-41 & n.13. [8] Id. at 143-44 (footnotes omitted). [9] 305 Conn. 523, 46 A.3d 102 (2012). [10] Id. at 537-38. [11] Id. at 538. [12] 69 Conn. 576, 593, 37 A. 1080, 1085 (1897). [13] 33 Conn. 586 (1867). [14] Id. [15] 130 Conn. 122, 32 A.2d 547 (1943). [16] 167 Conn. 10, 355 A.2d 49 (19......
-
The Common Law and Individual Rights in Connecticut Before the Federal Bill of Rights
...Supreme Court held that judges must limit their purview to the four corners of the state constitution. Norwalk St. Ry. Co.'s Appeal, 69 Conn. 576 (1897) I have elucidated this point in William J. Hamersley, Simeon E. Baldwin, and the Constitutional Revolution of 1897 in Connecticut, 23 C ON......
-
Serving the State: the Murals in the Connecticut State Library and Supreme Court Building
...of Connecticut, 5 PAPERS OF THE NEw HAVEN CoLONY HisToRICAL SociETY 179-183 (1894). 55 Norwalk Street Railway Company's Appeal, 69 Conn. 576 at 587 (1897). 56 1 Hamersly Connecticut-The Origin of Her Courts and Laws, in THE NEWle ENGLAND STAm Z (W.T. Davis ed. 1897). 57 1d., at 497. 58 Supr......