Connelly v. City of Bridgeport

Decision Date23 February 1926
Citation104 Conn. 238,132 A. 690
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesCONNELLY v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT. GILL v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Case Reserved from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County Frederick W. Huxford, Judge.

Actions by William F. Connelly and by Lawrence J. Gill against the City of Bridgeport to recover salaries claimed to be due from defendant to the plaintiffs as assessor and assistant to the assessor respectively. Reserved by the court of common pleas on an agreed statement of facts for advice of the Supreme Court. Questions answered.

Legislative will should be so interpreted with regard to existing legislation on same subject as to render it legally operative and effective.

Thomas M. Cullinan, of Bridgeport, for plaintiffs.

Alexander L. De Laney, of Bridgeport, for defendant.

HAINES, J.

These actions, brought separately, rest upon the same basis and require the consideration of essentially the same questions. At the request of the parties they were reserved, and by agreement of counsel argued together, and will be so considered in this opinion.

The charter of the city of Bridgeport, as revised and amended to September 1, 1917, provides that there shall be in the city of Bridgeport a tax commissioner, who shall have all the powers and duties exercised by board of assessors, and shall have authority to appoint a deputy commissioner and a chief clerk, etc. It also provides that there shall be a board of apportionment and taxation. In 1917 (Special Laws of 1917, p 840, § 3), the General Assembly enacted the following provision:

" The common council of the city of Bridgeport, by ordinance, shall have the power and authority to determine and change the salaries or other compensation of all officials elective or appointive under the charter of the city of Bridgeport."

This act, unless repealed by the act of 1923, subsequently referred to, was in force at the time of the passage of the act of 1925 (19 Sp. Laws, p. 807) in question. There was also in force at this time, unless repealed by the act of 1923, section 53 of the charter, which provided that the common council shall have the power to make orders, and ordinances " relative to the salaries and compensation of all officers of said city, and the duties of such officers, not expressly defined by the provisions of this act."

Prior to this enactment the salaries of the mayor, city attorney, director of public works, city clerk, tax collector, etc., were fixed by charter provision, and could not be reduced or increased by action of the common council. In the same special act of 1917 (Special Laws of 1917, p. 839) the General Assembly abolished the board of assessors and substituted in their stead an officer, designated " tax commissioner," whose salary, together with those of his deputy commissioners, clerks, etc., were fixed in the act. Prior to this act the board of assessors, and subsequent to the act the tax commissioner, were appointed by the mayor. By the charter revision of 1907 a board of apportionment was constituted, whose duty it was to fix the municipal budget and the tax rate to provide the necessary funds for municipal purposes. In 1923 the General Assembly enacted the following (Special Laws of 1923, p. 36):

" An act amending the charter of the city of Bridgeport.

The common council of the city of Bridgeport shall not abolish any existing office or reduce the rank or salary of any officer in said city: Provided, in the event any vacancy occurs in any office, the common council may abolish such office or reduce the salary provided for the officer occupying any such office, and also provided any officer may be removed for cause, subject to the provisions of the charter."

In 1925 (Special Laws, vol. 19, p. 807) the General Assembly, by an act approved June 1, 1925, entitled " an act amending the charter of the city of Bridgeport concerning the assessment and collection of taxes," enacted the provisions which have given rise to the questions under consideration in these actions. A copy of this act appears in the foot note.[1] By this act (section 1) it was provided that there should continue to be a board of apportionment and taxation; that on or before July 1, 1925, the Governor should appoint seven members of this board, two to serve until January 1, 1928, two until January 1, 1930, and three until January 1, 1932, It was also provided:

" In December prior to the expiration of the term of any member so appointed, the mayor shall appoint his successor to serve for a period of six years from the first day of January following the date of appointment. * * * Said board shall perform all the duties imposed by law upon the board of apportionment and taxation as constituted at the time of the passage of this act and such other duties as are imposed by the provisions hereof. * * * On or before July 1, 1925, said board of apportionment and taxation shall appoint a tax attorney, an assessor and a collector of taxes, each to serve for a term of six years from the date of his appointment and to receive a salary of seventy-five hundred dollars per annum, payable in equal semimonthly installments; but any such appointee may be removed from office for cause by the superior court on application to said court of at least two members of the board of apportionment and taxation. * * * The tax attorney, the assessor, the collector of taxes, the clerk of the board of apportionment and taxation, the board of relief and the board of contract and supply may appoint such assistants, legal, clerical and stenographic, as may be necessary for the conduct of the work imposed respectively on them by the provisions hereof, but the appointment of any person whose annual compensation shall exceed twelve hundred dollars shall be subject to the approval of the board of apportionment and taxation."

The foregoing citations are sufficient to show that by the act of 1925 the General Assembly sought to effect a radical and complete change in the then existing method of levying, assessing, and collecting taxes, and making appropriations in the city of Bridgeport, of selecting the necessary public officials for this work, and in providing for their compensation. This conclusion is emphasized by the closing paragraph of the act:

" All provisions of the charter of the city of Bridgeport and amendments thereto or ordinances of the city of Bridgeport or amendments thereto, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this act, are repealed, and no provision of the General Statutes inconsistent with any provision of this act shall apply to the city of Bridgeport."

With the wisdom or unwisdom of this legislation, this court has, of course, nothing to do. It is our function to interpret the legislative will, not to question its exercise. We are to construe the act with definite regard to the existing legislation on the same subject. Chamberlain v. Bridgeport, 91 A. 380, 88 Conn. 480, 490. If possible, also, we are to so interpret its terms that, when that will is ascertained it shall become legally operative and effective. It follows that arguments and considerations addressed to these matters of legal interpretation and construction are the only ones to which we can listen. State ex rel. Lewis v. Turney, 117 A. 499, 97 Conn. 497, 504.

Our first concern is the ascertainment of the legislative intent in the act of 1925--not what did it mean to say, but what is the meaning of what it did say? Chamberlain v. Bridgeport, 91 A. 380, 88 Conn. 480, 490; State v. Faatz, 76 A. 295, 83 Conn. 300, 305; Walsh v. Bridgeport, 91 A. 969, 88 Conn. 528, 534, Ann.Cas. 1917B, 318; Bissell v. Beckwith, 32 Conn. 509, 516. An examination of its provisions at once discloses a purpose to remove from the control of the local authorities and the people of Bridgeport the entire machinery then existing for the levy and collection of taxes and appropriations thereunder. Practically every feature of the charter and ordinances touching this branch of city business is rewritten and radically changed to the minutest detail.

The membership of the board of taxation and apportionment is changed from twelve to seven, and the selection of the new members is to be by the Governor of the state and not by local authority as theretofore, and no appointment to the board can be made by the mayor prior to January 1, 1928. This board appoints a tax attorney, an assessor, and a tax collector, each with a fixed salary of $7,500 per year, and these are to assume the duties of the former officials in connection with this feature of the city's affairs. The method of their selection and that of their subordinates, their respective duties, and their method of performing them, and many other requirements, are prescribed with a particularity that leaves no doubt of the intent to make a complete change, and put the new method in the place of the old in all its details. The obvious aim is to bring the exclusive management of taxation in Bridgeport under the provisions of this act, and divest the existing local authorities of control.

The act became operative July 1, 1925, and on July 6, 1925, the common council of the city of Bridgeport passed an ordinance, basing it upon claimed authority under section 35 of the charter, which ordinance reads as follows:

" Section 1. The salary of the tax assessor shall be at the rate of thirty-five hundred dollars per annum; the salary of the assistant or deputy tax assessor shall be at the rate of three thousand dollars per annum; the salary of the chief clerk shall be at the rate of twenty-five hundred dollars per annum; the salary of the clerk of block maps shall be at rate of two thousand dollars per annum; the salary of the transfer clerk shall be at the rate of
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • State v. Hughes
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
    • March 4, 1965
    ...of course, nothing to do. It is our function to interpret the legislative will, not to question its exercise.' Connelly v. City of Bridgeport, 104 Conn. 238, 249, 132 A. 690, 692; see Wallingford v. Neal, 108 Conn. 152, 158, 142 A. 805. Moreover, these considerations may be appropriately ad......
  • Keeney v. Town of Old Saybrook
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1996
    ...A.2d 425 (1980); Food, Beverage & Express Drivers Local Union v. Shelton, supra, 147 Conn. at 405, 161 A.2d 587; Connelly v. Bridgeport, 104 Conn. 238, 253, 132 A. 690 (1926). Because those "who contract with a municipal corporation are charged with notice of the extent of ... the powers of......
  • Kelly v. Dewey
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1930
    ... ... The plaintiff ... was convicted on June 18, 1928, by the city police court of ... Hartford, of operating a motor vehicle while under the ... influence of ... what is the intent expressed by what it did say? Connelly ... v. Bridgeport, 104 Conn. 238, 249, 132 A. 690; ... Chamberlain v. Bridgeport, 88 Conn ... ...
  • State v. Certain Contraceptive Materials
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • August 23, 1939
    ... ... say, but what is the intent expressed by what it did say ... Connelly v. Bridgeport , 104 Conn. 238, 249, 132 A ... 690; Chamberlain v. Bridgeport , 88 Conn. 480, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT