Connecticut Co. v. Town of Stamford

• Decision Date: 10 June 1920
• Citation: 95 Conn. 26,110 A. 554
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CONNECTICUT CO. v. TOWN OF STAMFORD et al.

110 A. 554

95 Conn. 26

CONNECTICUT CO. v. TOWN OF STAMFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 10, 1920

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; James H. Webb, Judge.

Appeal from an order of the Public Utilities Commission confirming the order of the Selectmen of Stamford that the Connecticut Company relocate its track upon Hope street in Stamford taken by the company to and tried by the superior court in Fairfield County. Facts admitted and stipulated by the parties, and judgment rendered thereon dismissing the appeal and affirming the order and decision of the Public Utilities Commission, from which the company appealed. Judgment set aside and judgment of the superior court sustaining the appeal directed. Error.

The Connecticut Company operates an electric street railway upon the westerly side of a portion of Hope street in Stamford for a distance of 5,500 feet thereon, with the necessary tracks, poles, wires, and other permanent structures. This side location was established at the time the railway was built, presumably by agreement between the railway and town.

On February 17, 1919, the town of Stamford, acting by its selectmen, served upon the Connecticut Company an order requiring it to relocate its track from a side line location upon Hope street by placing its track in the center of the street. From this order the company duly appealed to the Public Utilities Commission, and, after hearing had, the commission confirmed the order of the selectmen and dismissed the appeal of the company. From this order the company appealed to the superior court, and the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the commission.

Hope street forms a portion of one of the main highways between Stamford and New Canaan. The surface of the highway is out of repair, and the town purposes repairing the same by widening and grading the highway and laying a permanent pavement thereon. For the purpose of carrying out this improvement the order of the selectmen was made.

Aside from the proposed permanent pavement of Hope street, the relocation of the tracks to a center location thus conforming to the existing center location throughout the remainder of the entire line upon Hope street will be distinctly proper and highly conducive to the safety of all concerned, whether as passengers upon the street cars or as users of the highway.

The cost of relocating the track as required by the order will be $28,113.

The town of Stamford intends immediately to construct this pavement and will seek to require the company in accordance with General Statutes, § 3831, to pave the portion of its tracks which may be relocated. The cost of this pavement between the tracks and two feet each side will be $76,000.

The Connecticut Company operated its system for the year ending October 31, 1919, at a loss of $10,939.61. Since the promulgation of this order, the traffic rates of the company have been increased and will produce an estimated increase of operative revenue of at least $1,500,000. It is under obligation to expend $1,500,000 for paving, which municipal authorities may momentarily enforce.

It owes the state more than $1,190,000 in unpaid taxes.

The physical valuation of this line from Glenbrook Corners to Springdale is $45,000.

There was a deficit on this line for this fiscal year of $32.43 allowing a return of 5 per cent. on the investment value of the line of $45,000.

The protection of the public safety, health, and morals by exercise of police power is not within the constitutional inhibitions, and, all property being subject to such regulations, the state is not obliged to indemnify property owners from damage done by its legitimate exercise, and such property is not taken but regulated to promote public welfare; but such power must be exercised within constitutional limitations.

Seth W. Baldwin, of New Haven, for appellant.

Daniel F. B. Hickey and Nichols C. Downs, both of Stamford, for appellees.

WHEELER, J.

The maintenance and regulation of highways is within the police power of the state. The state may by itself or its agent decide what public improvement the public safety, health, or welfare demands.

The power to legislate for the safety, health, or welfare of its people is inherent in the state in virtue of its sovereignty. All property is held subject to this power. Meriden v. West Meriden Cemetery Ass'n, 83 Conn. 204, 207, 76 A. 515. And all property, too, is held upon the implied promise of its owner or user that it shall not be used against the public welfare.

The Connecticut Company accepted its charter and operated this railway line subject to the power of the State or its agent, the town, to so regulate its use that it might not do injury to the public welfare.

When the conditions and locality change and the public welfare requires it, the street railway may be compelled to change its grade, or location, or the manner of its use of the highway. Goresbeck v. Duluth S. T. & A. Ry., 250 U.S. 607, 613, 40 Sup.Ct. 38, 63 L.Ed. 1167; People ex rel City of Geneva v. Geneva W. S. F. & C. I. T. Co., 112 A.D. 581, 98 N.Y.S. 719; Elliott, Roads and Streets, § 75

The protection of the public safety, health, or morals by the exercise of the police power is not within the inhibitions of the Constitution; and, since all property is held subject to such regulation, there is no obligation upon the state to indemnify the owner of property from the damage done him by the legitimate exercise of the police power. Property so damaged is not taken; its use is regulated in order to promote the public welfare.

" While the city was bound to make compensation for that which was actually taken, it cannot be required to compensate the defendant for obeying lawful regulations enacted for the safety of the lives and property of the people." C., B. & Q. R. R. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 256, 17 Sup.Ct. 592, 41 L.Ed. 979.

The police power, like every other power of government, is within constitutional limitations.

Laws enacted presumptively for the public welfare, but in fact not, cannot be sustained as an authorized exercise of the police power. Toledo, etc., R. R. v. Jacksonville, 67 Ill. 37, 16 Am.Rep. 611. And an act regulatory of this power which is...