McGar v. Borough of Bristol

• Citation: 71 Conn. 652,42 A. 1000
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 30 March 1899
• Parties: McGAR v. BOROUGH OF BRISTOL.

42 A. 1000

71 Conn. 652

McGAR

v. BOROUGH OF BRISTOL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 30, 1899.

Appeal from court of common pleas, Hartford county; William S. Case, Judge.

Action by Ida M. McGar, the administratrix of the estate of Daniel Pidcock, deceased, as such, and also in her own right as a joint owner of a certain lot in the borough of Bristol, against such borough, for damages from a change made by said borough in the grade of certain streets therein, bounding said lot. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The finding stated these facts: The plaintiff in 1894 owned a lot on the corner of Prospect and Henry streets, in the defendant borough, on which were one house fronting on the former, and two fronting on the latter. The Prospect street house stood on a knoll, which was the end of a ridge over which Prospect street passed. The well-settled grade of the street followed the natural contour of the land, which was undulating, but nowhere rose as high as the knoll. In 1894 the borough straightened and widened Prospect street by due proceedings under its charter, and benefits were assessed against the plaintiff on account thereof. No change in grade was then made, but in 1895 the grade of the street was changed, and without first establishing any grade in the manner provided by the borough charter. At this time the borough reduced the inequalities in the surface of the street, and cut off the top of the ridge, near the front of the plaintiff's house; this cut being about two feet deep at that point. Her sidewalk had been higher than the roadbed, from which steps led up to It, and another short flight of steps broke the slope from the sidewalk to the house. The borough lowered the sidewalk by more than five feet, to the new grade of the street. The house was so near the sidewalk that this made it necessary to construct a new flight of steps in the dooryard, and the effect of the changes was to depreciate the market value of the plaintiff's property, and give the place an unsightly appearance. The plaintiff asked the borough to take proceedings under its charter to assess damages and benefits on account of these changes, but it refused. She then paid the previous assessment against her, and brought this suit. During the trial, the court, at the request of both parties, viewed the premises, and at this time observed the condition of the streets. Two photographs of the house—one taken before and one after the change of grade-were introduced, with testimony as to their accuracy. That of the photographer was not introduced, to which the defendant excepted. The defendant claimed that the question to be passed upon, and which must determine the judgment of the court, was "the market value of the premises just before and just after the changes found, taking into account the damages suffered on account of the changes thereof, and that, in considering this, the changed condition of the street, both in front of, and extending in either direction from, the plaintiffs premises, must be taken into account." The court accepted this as a correct statement of the law, "with the reservation that the bearing of the 'changed condition of the street,' at points other than in front of the plaintiff's premises, upon the question of benefits, is a matter dependent in every case upon the circumstances and conditions peculiar to it." Sundry exceptions were taken to the finding, and to the refusal to incorporate therein certain matters which the defendant claimed to be...