In re Petition of Mayor & Aldermen of Springfield

• Decision Date: 22 January 1920
• Citation: 125 N.E. 847,234 Mass. 578
• Parties: Petition of MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

234 Mass. 578

125 N.E. 847

Petition of MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Jan. 22, 1920.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Hampden County.

Petition of the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Springfield for appointment of commissioners for construction of a bridge, wherein, after commissioners were appointed, the City of Holyoke filed motion to recommit the matter to the commission, and objected to confirmation of report, resulting in decrees denying motion to recommit and confirming the report, and the City excepts. Exceptions overruled, and decree confirming the report of the commissioners affirmed.

Edward T. Broadhurst, City Sol., and Harold P. Small, Asst. City Sol., both of Springfield, for petitioner.

R. P. Stapleton and Eugene A. Lynch, both of Holyoke, for city of Holyoke.

Edward A. McClintock, David B. Hoar, and Raymond D. Houlihan, all of Springfield, and John B. Shea, of Springfield, for town of West Springfield.

Scott Adams, of Springfield, for town of Agawam.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a petition for the appointment of commissioners under an act to provide for the construction of a bridge across the Connecticut river between Springfield and West Springfield. St. 1915, c. 252. Commissioners were appointed. A first report was recommitted to the commission by the court and after additional hearings a second report has been filed. Thereupon the city of Holyoke filed a motion to recommit the matter to the commission for further consideration, and also filed objections to the confirmation of the report. Decrees were entered denying the motion to recommit, and confirming the report. No evidence is reported. The case comes before us simply upon the material parts of the two reports of the commissioners and the motion to recommit and the objections to this confirmation filed by the city of Holyoke. Without deciding whether under section 5 of said act exceptions or appeal lie to the entry of a decree by a single justice confirming the report, assumptions in that particular are made in favor of the objecting city and all points argued by it are considered on their merits.

The report of the commissioners recites that numerous hearings were held and all interested parties given full opportunity to present their views. It then fixes the location of the bridge and its approaches, and specifies its design, material and dimensions and makes apportionment of the costs. The report in general appears to conform to the provisions of said act.

[1] 1. The reports of the commissioners show that the city of Holyoke was represented at the hearings. It does not appear that any objections were made during the progress of the hearings or that any requests for rulings were made or that any ruling of law was made to which objection was taken or that any other questions of law were sought to be raised until after the reports were filed. Only questions of law are open for consideration. Those are confined to such errors as appear on the face of the reports.

[3] 2. It is provided by section 4 of the act that the commissioners ‘shall determine what cities and towns in the county of Hampden are or will be specially benefited by the erection of the bridge, and what proportional part of the cost of the bridge and of its approaches' and other expenses ‘shall be paid by said county and by such cities and towns respectively.’ The commissioners say in their report that ‘after notice and a hearing and consideration of the evidence,’ it is determined and decided that the cities of Springfield and Holyoke, and the towns of West Springfield, Westfield and Agawam ‘will be specially benefited by the erection of the bridge.’ They then assess such cost and expense in these proportions: Thirty-one per cent. upon the county of Hampden; 51 per cent. upon the city of Springfield; 12 per cent. upon the town of West Springfield; 3 per cent. upon the city of Holyoke; 2 per cent. upon the town of Westfield; 1 per cent. upon the town of Agawam.

It is contended that the city of Holyoke will not receive any special benefit from the construction of the bridge. The questions whether there are such benefits and, if any, what is their extent, are questions of fact on this record. It is not necessary to define ‘specially benefited’ as those words are used in section 4 of the act, because, manifestly, whatever rational definition be given them, it cannot be said as matter of law that the City of Holyoke was not specially benefited. The determination of the proportional part of the cost of bridges between municipalities, constituting great arteries of travel, to be borne by several cities, towns and counties, is ordinarily to be fixed upon broad considerations having reference to all the various circumstances of advantage and convenience to them respectively...