Cassidy v. Tait
| Decision Date | 14 July 1953 |
| Citation | 140 Conn. 156,98 A.2d 808 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CASSIDY et al. v. TAIT et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
John V. Donnelly, Bridgeport, for appellants (defendants).
D. H. Cotter, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was John J. Cotter, Bridgeport, for appellees (plaintiff).
Before BROWN, C. J., and BALDWIN, INGLIS, O'SULLIVAN and CORNELL, JJ.
The plaintiffs, patrolmen in the police department of the city of Bridgeport, brought this action by writ dated May 20, 1952, against the board of police commissioners, the superintendent of police and the civil service commission of that city. They sought an injunction requiring the restoration of their names to a list, established by the commission, of eligible candidates for appointment to duty in the detective bureau, and restraining the defendants from terminating the list or conducting any further examination for candidates until all the plaintiffs have been appointed detectives. The trial court rendered judgment declaring the attempted termination of the list of no effect and that the list was then subsisting, but denying any injunctive relief. The defendants have appealed.
The finding of the trial court may be abridged as follows: Within the police department of the city of Bridgeport there is a detective bureau which includes a captain, two lieutenants, fourteen sergeants and nineteen detectives. The charter of the city makes it the duty of the board of police commissioners, hereinafter referred to as the board, to appoint the members of the police department. 15 Spec.Laws 528, § 86, as amended, 15 Spec.Laws 872, § 4. An ordinance adopted by the common council of the city pursuant to the charter, 15 Spec.Laws 513, § 53, confided to the board the 'general management and control of the police department' and the power to make 'all needful rules and regulations for its government.' Bridgeport Ordinances § 232 (Rev.1939). Another ordinance provided for a detective bureau under the authority and control of the board and gave the board 'power to assign for service in said bureau from the department * * * a captain and so many other members as said board may from time to time select and designate.' Id., § 239.
In 1943, the General Assembly enacted 'An Act Concerning the Rank of Officers of the Bridgeport Police Department' which provided for assignment by the board of patrolmen to detective duty. 24 Spec.Laws 355. Pursuant to this act, the civil service commission, hereinafter referred to as the commission held a competitive examination on October 22, 1949, for the purpose of establishing an eligibility list of patrolmen from which assignments could be made to the detective bureau. The notice of this examination stated that it was 'not a promotion examination' and that the law under which it was held 'provides that a Patrolman assigned as a Detective continues to have the rank, tenure and rights of a Patrolman.' The notice contained no statement whatsoever concerning the duration of the list of eligible candidates which was to be compiled as a result of the examination. The plaintiffs were among forty patrolmen who passed the examination and whose names were included in a list of eligible candidates, numbered in the order of their relative standing. The list was established by the commission on January 19, 1950. On March 27, 1950, the board adopted an amendment to its rules which provided that all lists established by the commission from which assignments of patrolmen to detective duty were to be made should automatically terminate two years after the date of their establishment. This rule was thereafter approved by the commission. The first twenty-two patrolmen on the list have been assigned to detective duty. The plaintiffs, who are among the remaining eighteen, have not been reached for assignment.
In 1951, the General Assembly enacted 'An Act Concerning Detective Personnel for the Police Department of the City of Bridgeport.' 26 Spec.Laws 457. This act, which amended the 1943 act by substituting a complete rewording of it, provided for the promotion of patrolmen to detective duty. On January 4, 1952, the case of State ex rel. Higgins v. Civil Service Commission, 139 Conn. 102, 90 A.2d 862, was pending on the docket of the Supreme Court of Errors. It involved an interpretation of the civil service act of the city. Proceeding upon the assumption that the list of eligible candidates for assignment to detective duty established on January 19, 1950, would expire on January 19, 1952, the board, on January 14, 1952, at the request of counsel for the plaintiffs, extended the duration of the list until June 1, 1952. This action was approved by the commission. A request for a further extension was denied by the board on May 12, 1952.
The plaintiffs claim that they are eligible for appointment to duty as detectives because their names appear on the list established on January 19, 1950, and that the board was without power to terminate the list at the expiration of two years. The defendants, on the other hand, claim that the board was within its power and that the amendment to the rules enacted by it on March 27, 1950, terminated the list on January 19, 1952, or on June 1, 1952. The basic question, however, is whether, as of May 20, 1952, the date of the plaintiffs' writ, the list established on January 19, 150, upon which their names appear as eligible candidates, was still in full force and effect.
The answer to the problem propounded by this case lies in the determination of the intent and purpose of the pertinent legislation. State ex rel. City of Stamford v. Board of Purchase and Supplies, 111 Conn. 147, 161, 149 A. 410; Kelly v. Dewey, 111 Conn. 281, 284, 149 A. 840. Sound construction requires that statutes be considered in the light of their history, their language, the purpose they are designed to serve and the circumstances surrounding their enactment. Savings Bank of Rockville v. Wilcox, 117 Conn. 188, 193, 167 A. 709; Waterbury Savings Bank v. Danaher, 128 Conn. 78, 81, 20 A.2d 455.
The 1943 act, 24 Spec.Laws 355, was adopted while World War II was in progress. Normal procedures were greatly disrupted. There was a critical need of manpower. The apparent purpose of the legislature was to establish a method of recruiting patrolmen for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mack v. Saars
...their purpose, and the circumstances surrounding their enactment. Delinks v. McGowan, 148 Conn. 614, 618, 173 A.2d 488; Cassidy v. Tait, 140 Conn. 156, 160, 98 A.2d 808. Chapter 380 of the General Statutes is in derogation of a common-law right and is penall in nature. See § 20-138a. Theref......
-
Anderson v. Ludgin
...their enactment.' Mack v. Saars, 150 Conn. 290, 294, 188 A.2d 863; Delinks v. McGowan, 148 Conn. 614, 618, 173 A.2d 488; Cassidy v. Tait, 140 Conn. 156, 160, 98 A.2d 808." City Savings Bank v. Lawler, 163 Conn. 149, 157, 302 A.2d 252, 257 (1972). If the language of the statute is clear, it ......
-
Town of Winchester v. Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations
...language, purpose and the circumstances surrounding its enactment. Delinks v. McGowan, 148 Conn. 614, 618, 173 A.2d 488; Cassidy v. Tait, 140 Conn. 156, 160, 98 A.2d 808." State v. Sober, 166 Conn. 81, 91n, 347 A.2d 61, 67. In the federal sector it has been said that the purpose of the NLRA......
-
R.A. Civitello Co. v. City of New Haven, 3310
...and the circumstances surrounding its enactment. Delinks v. McGowan, 148 Conn. 614, 618, 173 A.2d 488 [ (1961) ]; Cassidy v. Tait, 140 Conn. 156, 160, 98 A.2d 808 [ (1953) ].' State v. Sober, 166 Conn. 81, 91n, 347 A.2d 61 [1974]." Winchester v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, 1......