Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Town of Southbury
| Decision Date | 20 July 1920 |
| Citation | 95 Conn. 242,111 A. 363 |
| Parties | CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. v. TOWN OF SOUTHBURY et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Lucien F. Burpee Judge.
Petition by the Connecticut Light & Power Company against the Town of Southbury and another for discontinuance of the so-called " River road," pursuant to chapter 217, Pub. Acts 1919, brought to and tried before a judge of the superior court. From a judgment directing the petitioner to comply with the terms and conditions specified in the act, the town of Southbury appeals. No error.
See also, 111 A. 360.
Chapter 217, P. A. 1919, provides in effect that the portion of the River road extending from a point near Zoar bridge, in the town of Oxford, to a point near Bennett's bridge, in the town of Southbury, may be discontinued, provided the Connecticut Light & Power Company shall, within three months after the passage of the act, bring its petition to a judge of the superior court for a finding of the fair and reasonable value of the land and improvements thereon occupied by the above-described portion of that highway. Thereupon the judge is directed to order a time and place of hearing, and to cause notice to be given to the state highway commissioner and to the towns, and after hearing to direct the petitioner to pay the ascertained value of the land and improvements to the state treasurer to be held for expenditure by the highway commissioner in the possible construction of a trunk line road through the locality now served by the River road. The judge is also to direct the company to give a sufficient bond to indemnify the state and the towns from all claims for damages on account of the discontinuance of the road. On the payment of the ascertained amount to the state treasurer and the filing of a sufficient bond, " such portion of said River road shall be for all purposes discontinued, and said company may thereupon flood the same or any portion thereof." Other provisions of the act are not of importance in this case.
The act was approved May 6, 1919, and within the time limited this petition was brought to Judge Burpee for a finding of the value of the land occupied by the described portion of the River road, and of the amount of the bond to be required of the petitioner, and for an order of notice of the time and place of hearing. Notice was given. The judge found the value of the land to be $10,000, and that a bond in the amount of $10,000 was sufficient. The town of Southbury appeals from the judgment on the ground that the act is unconstitutional and because the judgment does not conform to the pleadings and proofs.
Nathaniel R. Bronson and John H. Cassidy, both of Waterbury, for appellant.
Walter E. Monagan and Terrence F. Carmody, both of Waterbury, for appellee.
We think the judgment is not erroneous in form. The petition follows the statute in asking for a finding of the value of the land occupied by the River road within the described limits and the amount of a bond which should be sufficient to indemnify the state and the respondent towns. Having once preferred these requests in the body of the petition, there was no necessity for repeating them in a formal prayer for relief. The statute directs that the trial judge " shall in writing direct said company to pay to the treasurer of the state" the ascertained value of the land, and " shall also direct said company to file with the secretary of state a bond," etc. There is no express direction for the entry of a judgment to that effect, but these provisions of the statute are satisfied when the written direction, which is in effect the decision or sentence of the tribunal, is put into the form of a judgment; and, having regard to the necessity for a final and conclusive and enforceable record of the findings of the judge, we do not see in what more appropriate form they could have been embodied.
" When judicial authority is vested by statute in a judge of the superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blue Sky Bar, Inc. v. Town of Stratford
...property in the interest of the public welfare or the public convenience, provided it is done reasonably. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Southbury, 95 Conn. 242, 111 Atl. 363 [1920]." State v. Bassett, 100 Conn. 430, 432, 123 A. 842 (1924). "The limit of the exercise of the police power i......
-
Cahill v. Leopold
...intended that it should be valid. DeMond v. Liquor Control Commission, 129 Conn. 642, 645, 30 A.2d 547; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Town of Southbury, 95 Conn. 242, 247, 111 A. 363. This means simply that we should find, if possible, a reasonable, logical way by which the act of the le......
-
McAdams v. Barbieri
...question of class legislation. Carroll v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 136 Conn. 49, 59, 68 A.2d 299; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Town of Southbury, 95 Conn. 242, 246, 111 A. 363; 11 Am.Jur. 759, § 114. This is not to say, however, that the defendant cannot challenge the validity of the plai......
-
Carroll v. Socony-vacuum Oil Co. Inc.
...discriminated against is in a position to attack a statute on the ground of an illegal classification. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Town of Southbury, 95 Conn. 242, 246, 111 A. 363; 11 Am.Jur. 759. It is a thoroughly established principle that one who can suffer no injury by the operati......