Bassett v. Desmond

• Citation: 101 A.2d 294,140 Conn. 426
• Parties: BASSETT v. DESMOND, Town Manager, et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 17 November 1953
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

Page 294

101 A.2d 294

140 Conn. 426

BASSETT v. DESMOND, Town Manager, et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 17, 1953.

Ephraim E. Sinn, Milford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Richard H. Lynch, Milford, for appellees (defendant Desmond as town manager and individually).

Before INGLIS, C. J., BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN and QUINLAN, JJ., and DALY, Superior Judge.

O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff is a resident and taxpayer of the town of Milford. He originally brought suit against John J. Desmond in his individual capacity and as town manager of Milford. Subsequently, The Michaels Art Bronze Company, hereinafter called the company, was, on its own motion, made a party defendant. The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain Desmond as town manager from carrying out the terms of a contract between the town and the company for the installation of parking meters on the streets of Milford. The plaintiff also sought to recover for the benefit of the town the sum of $3500 from Desmond individually on the theory that he had illegally expended public funds in having the town hall painted. The court found the issues for the defendant Desmond on all of the five counts of the complaint, and from the judgment rendered the plaintiff has appealed.

The case readily divides itself into two parts of which the first deals with the parking meter contract. As to this part, the finding, as corrected, narrates the following material facts: Early in 1951, the then acting town manager, named DeBard, advertised for bids for the installation of parking meters in Milford. The company submitted what proved to be the lowest proposal. On May 10, 1951, DeBard, acting pursuant to a vote of the town council, accepted this proposal. The pertinent part of the contract thus entered into was that the town agreed to buy and the company agreed to sell 160 parking meters for the price of $58.50 per complete unit, delivered at and erected in Milford. Of this figure, not over $4.50 was to represent freight and installation costs. The town was to collect the coins deposited in the meters. The receipts were to be sent to the company until the cost of freight and installation had been liquidated. Thereafter, the parties were to share equally in the receipts until the company had received the remaining $54 due for each unit. When this event occurred, the town was to be under no further obligation to the company.

Subsequently, the meters were installed at locations determined by the police authorities, and parking lines were painted on the street by town employees regularly assigned to painting street lines and crosswalks. The cost of the paint for this operation was $28. On July 1, 1951, the meters were put in operation. The total receipts taken out of the coin boxes from that date until June 19, 1952, the time of trial, was $11,042.29. All of these receipts have been deposited in a special fund, and at no time have they been commingled with the general funds of the town. The company has been paid monthly in conformity with the contract, and the town has retained the share of the receipts to which it is entitled.

Under one of the terms of the contract, the town agreed to keep the meters in good repair. Repairs have been negligible and, whenever needed, have been handled by a police sergeant in line with his regular duties. Parking violations have been supervised, and collections from the meters have been made, by police officers as a part of their routine patrol. The meters have greatly increased the efficiency of the police is supervising parking restrictions. The town budget made no provision for any expense connected with installing the meters. Before they were erected, the plaintiff made written demand on DeBard to repudiate the contract as illegal because of several reasons set forth in the letter. On June 11, 1951, Desmond succeeded DeBard as town manager. In this action, as we have already said, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin Desmond from performing the contract.

The plaintiff's claims attacking the legality of the parking meter contract need not be detailed or discussed at length because he in confronted by an insurmountable barrier. He has no standing to obtain the relief which he seeks. It is true that Connecticut has always recognized the jurisdiction of its courts to entertain suits instituted by taxpayers to enjoin the officers of a town from performing illegal acts. Sauter v. Mahan, 95 Conn. 311, 314, 111 A. 186; Mooney v. Clark, 69 Conn. 241, 244, 37 A. 506, 1080; City of New London v. Brainard, 22 Conn. 552, 553, 557. It is a fundamental concept of judicial administration, however, that no person is entitled to set the machinery of the courts in operation except to obtain redress for an injury he has suffered or to prevent an injury he may suffer, either in an individual or a representative capacity. Waterbury Trust Co. v. Porter, 130 Conn. 494, 498, 35 A.2d 837. For this reason the plaintiff, relying as he was upon his status as a taxpayer of the town, was obligated to prove some pecuniary or other great injury to himself. It was not enough that he could qualify as a taxpayer. He had to go further. He had to establish that the alleged illegal contract would, if carried out by Desmond, result, directly or indirectly, in an increase in his taxes or would, in some other, fashion, cause him irreparable injury. Cassidy v. City of Waterbury, 130 Conn. 237, 245, 33 A.2d 142; City of Pueblo v. Flanders, 122 Colo. 571, 574, 225 P.2d 832; Golden v. City of Flora, 408 Ill. 129, 132, 96 N.E.2d 506; Security National Bank v. Bagley, 202 Iowa 701, 710, 210 N.W. 947, 49 A.L.R. 705; Jaeger v. Hillsboro, 164 Kan. 533, 537, 190 P.2d 420...