Bardes v. Zoning Bd. of City of Stamford
| Decision Date | 01 June 1954 |
| Citation | 106 A.2d 160,141 Conn. 317 |
| Parties | BARDES et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF CITY OF STAMFORD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Maurice J. Buckley, Stamford with whom were Louis J. Iacovo, Stamford, and, on the brief, Joseph T. McCue, Jr., Stamford, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
John M. Hanrahan, Stamford, with whom was Thomas N. Wynne, Stamford, for the appellees (defendants).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
On December 18, 1952, the named defendant granted a change of zone of certain land in Stamford comprising five and a fraction acres. The three plaintiffs, all taxpayers owning real estate in the immediate vicinity, appealed from the action of the board to the Court of Common Pleas. Their appeal was dismissed, and from the judgment rendered thereon they have appealed to this court.
In the brief filed by the defendants in this court, the claim was made for the first time that there was no statutory authority for an appeal from the action of the Stamford zoning board. It would therefore follow that if the claim is sound the Court of Common Pleas was without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and this court is without jurisdiction in the premises. Whenever the absence of jurisdiction is brought to the notice of a court, cognizance of the fact must be taken and the matter determined before it can move a further step in the case. Marcil v. A. H. Merriman & Sons, Inc., 115 Conn. 678, 682, 163 A. 411. An examination of the provisions of the Stamford charter concerning zoning fails to reveal any authorization for an appeal to the courts from decisions of the zoning board at the time this appeal was taken. Nor can we find any general statute providing for such an appeal. Zoning existed in Stamford by virtue of chapter 55 of the Stamford charter. 25 Spec.Laws, p. 444. An appeal has now been provided for by an amendment to the charter. 26 Spec.Laws, p. 1238, § 556.
Appeals to the courts from administrative officers or boards exist only under statutory authority. Long v. Zoning Commission of City of Norwalk, 133 Conn. 248, 252, 50 A.2d 172. This court is without jurisdiction, as was the Court of Common Pleas, although the point was not raised in that court. Judgment should have been rendered dismissing the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
There is error in the form of the judgment, it is set aside and the court is directed to render judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nader v. Altermatt
...from decisions of administrative officers exist only under statutory authority. Sheridan v. Planning Board, supra; Bardes v. Zoning Board, 141 Conn. 317, 318, 106 A.2d 160; Long v. Zoning Commission, 133 Conn. 248, 252, 50 A.2d As we recently stated in Hartford Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. Gazd......
-
Sheridan v. Planning Bd. of City of Stamford
...the decision of the Court of Common Pleas even though the jurisdictional deficiency was not raised in that court. Bardes v. Zoning Board, 141 Conn. 317, 318, 106 A.2d 160. II Having decided that the Sheridan and Sylvia Dowling appeals must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, we next cons......
-
Connecticut Bank and Trust Co. v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
...v. Carten, 153 Conn. 603, 610, 219 A.2d 711 (1966); W. Maltbie, Connecticut Appellate Procedure § 273; see Bardes v. Zoning Board, 141 Conn. 317, 318-19, 106 A.2d 160 (1954). This court has a duty to dismiss, even on its own initiative, 3 any appeal that it lacks jurisdiction to hear. Sasso......
-
Allied Plywood, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Com'n of Town of South Windsor
...the courts are without jurisdiction to hear them. Kosinski v. Lawlor, 177 Conn. 420, 425, 418 A.2d 66 (1979); Bardes v. Zoning Board, 141 Conn. 317, 318, 106 A.2d 160 (1954). The trial court had no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. We therefore hold that the trial court's dismissal of the p......