Burns v. Seymour
| Decision Date | 29 June 1954 |
| Citation | 106 A.2d 759,141 Conn. 401 |
| Parties | BURNS et al. v. SEYMOUR, Town Clerk of Colebrook, et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Walter M. Pickett, Jr., and William J. Larkin, 2d, Waterbury, with whom, on the brief, was William J. Larkin, Waterbury, for plaintiffs.
H. Roger Jones, Winsted, for defendants town of New Hartford at al.
Edward J. Quinlan, Jr., Winsted, for defendants town of Colebrook et al.
Carmine R. Lavieri, Winsted, for defendants Catherine Brown et al.
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
In this action for a declaratory judgment, the pertinent facts are the following: Pursuant to the provisions of § 298b of the 1951 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes (as amended, Cum.Sup.1953, § 732c), the towns of Barkhamsted, Colebrook, Hartland, Norfolk, Harwinton and New Hartford, during the summer of 1951, appointed members to a temporary regional school planning committee to investigate the advisibility of constructing a regional high school. The members met on September 25, 1951, organized as the temporary regional school planning committee of the several towns and, thereafter, reported to the towns. In each of these six towns on March 23, 1953, a referendum vote on the establishment of a regional school district consisting of the six towns, with the recommended school site in the town of Barkhamsted, was had, and a majority of those voting in each town, except in Harwinton and New Hartford, voted Yes. At special elections held in Barkhamsted, Colebrook, Hartland and Norfolk on May 9, 1953, a referendum vote on the establishment of a regional school district consisting of these four towns, with the recommended site in the town of Barkhamsted, was had, and a majority of those voting in Barkhamsted, and Colebrook voted Yes, but in Hartland and Norfolk the voters rejected the proposal. In July, 1953, the towns of Barkhamsted and Colebrook voted to establish a regional school district to be comprised of those two towns. In New Hartford on September 22, 1953, a majority of those participating in a town meeting voted for a resoultion to On September 26, 1953, in Norfolk, a resolution to 'apply for admission to the Barkhamsted-Colebrook Regional School District' was adopted. In Hartland, on October 17, 1953, it was voted that the town apply for admission to the district.
On October 31, 1953, in Colebrook, a majority voted in favor of the following proposal: 'That Regional School District No. 7, comprising the Towns of Colebrook and Barkhamsted, admit the Towns of Norfolk, Hartland and New Hartford to the district.' A like proposal was approved in Barkhamsted on the same date. Neither the town officials nor the inhabitants of the towns of Barkhamsted and Colebrook received official notice of the conditions specified in the application of the town of New Hartford for admission to the district, nor were they informed thereof by the warnings of or ballots used in the special elections held on October 31, 1953, in those two towns. The reservation propounds the questions set forth in the footnote. 1
The first question to be decided is whether the town of New Hartford was legally and validly admitted to the district. Section 743c of the 1953 Cumulative Supplement provides: Section 738c prescribes the manner in which the number of members of a regional board of education shall be determined and the procedure to be followed in appointing them. New Hartford's application, based on its vote of September 22, 1953, to join the district was invalid since it was contingent upon conditions which the town could not legally attach to it. The only authority for any town's application to join a regional school district is that contained in § 742c of the 1953 Cumulative Supplement, which does not include any provision for a conditional application. It provides clearly that any 'town adjacent to a regional school...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kellems v. Brown
...answer merely academic questions. Congress & Daggett, Inc. v. Seamless Rubber Co., 145 Conn. 318, 323, 142 A.2d 137; Burns v. Seymour, 141 Conn. 401, 406, 106 A.2d 759. IV A further contention of the plaintiffs is that a proper interpretation of § 12-506 4 of the act requires that the basis......
-
Olszewski v. State Emp. Retirement Commission
...language, courts cannot recognize claimed equities which appear to run counter to the wording of the statute. Burns v. Seymour, 141 Conn. 401, 405, 106 A.2d 759, and cases cited. If an exception is to be made under circumstances like those presented in the instant case, only the legislature......
-
Barr v. First Taxing Dist. of City of Norwalk
...or if not, could be passed upon to much better advantage if the cause was tried and the facts fully developed. Burns v. Seymour, 141 Conn. 401, 406, 106 A.2d 759; Claffey v. Bergin, 121 Conn. 695, 697, 183 A. 16; Harrison v. Harrison, 96 Conn. 568, 570, 114 A. 681; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., ......
-
Congress & Daggett, Inc. v. Seamless Rubber Co.
...required to offer to sell to the defendant. On a reservation, this court will not answer questions that are academic. Burns v. Seymour, 141 Conn. 401, 406, 106 A.2d 759. It would not be in accord with the policy of this court to answer questions (a) and (b) at this time. Bankers Trust Co. v......