Crofut v. City of Danbury

• Decision Date: 01 December 1894
• Citation: 65 Conn. 294,32 A. 365
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CROFUT v. CITY OF DANBURY.

32 A. 365

65 Conn. 294

CROFUT

v. CITY OF DANBURY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 1, 1894.

Case reversed from superior court, Fairfield county; Hall, Judge.

Action by Harris L. Crofut against the city of Danbury for a reward for discovering and procuring the conviction of an incendiary who set fire to a building in defendant city; the action being founded on the fact that the city council passed a resolution offering a reward of $2,000 for detection and conviction of any party who had set fire to buildings in the city, or who might thereafter attempt it, and that thereafter, at a city meeting, it was voted that that sum be appropriated for such purpose. Case reserved for supreme court. Judgment directed for defendant.

James E. Walsh and Henry A. Purdy, for plaintiff.

Lyman D. Brewster and John F. Cuff, for defendant.

BALDWIN, J. The charter of the city of Danbury (10 Sp. Acts, p. 998, § 19) gives the common council power to make ordinances for a number of specified purposes, among which are "to preserve order and peace"; "to protect said city from fire and from the danger of the same"; "to establish fire limits; to regulate the mode of building and materials used for building"; and "to provide, regulate and prescribe the duties of the city police force." Section 30 provides for a police force, of which the mayor shall be ex officio the chief, to consist of such number as the common council may from time to time deem necessary. Section 32 requires the appointment of a "fire police force," of not more than 30 members, "to act in conjunction with the fire department, when on duty, and also to act as special police whenever their services may be required," subject to such rules as the common council may prescribe. It is made the duty of the mayor, by section 11, to recommend to the common council, from time to time, "the adoption of all such measures connected with the police, security, health, and general well-being of said city, and the improvement of its government and finances, as he shall deem expedient." Section 16 gives the city sheriff the same powers within the city that are possessed by sheriffs in their respective counties. A city court is created, with an extensive criminal jurisdiction, and a prosecuting attorney, whose duty, by section 68, is "diligently to inquire after and make due presentment or complaint to said court of all crimes, misdemeanors, and other criminal matters, whereof said court has jurisdiction." Special meetings of the city (section 6) may be called as the common council may direct. By these various provisions the general assembly took care that the city should be supplied with an adequate police force; a fire police, to act with the fire department, and, when necessary, as a special police force; a court to try offenders against law and order; and a prosecuting attorney to bring them to justice. For all who fill any of these official positions, a suitable compensation is provided. The present action is based upon the claim that the common council can supplement these agencies provided by the legislature for the detection and punishment of crime by securing the aid of private individuals, through the offer of a reward. The powers of the common council are specially enumerated, and the only one of these which is relied on by the plaintiff is that of passing ordinances to protect the city from fire, and from danger of fire.

The powers expressly granted to a municipal corporation carry with them such other powers as are necessarily implied in or incident to such grants, and it also possesses all powers which are indispensable to the attainment and maintenance of its declared objects and purposes. Municipal corporations are more strictly limited in these respects than...