Mitchell v. S. New England Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1916 |
| Citation | 90 Conn. 179,96 A. 966 |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE CO. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Lucien F. Burpee, Judge.
Action by Charles H. Mitchell against the Southern New England Telephone Company. From a judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. No error.
Action to restrain the defendant from using a telephone line in front of the plaintiff's premises which was alleged to have been constructed without legal authority and without payment to the plaintiff for the taking of his property, and also for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to remove such line, and for $100 damages, brought to the superior court for Hartford county, where the defendant's demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and, upon refusal of the plaintiff to amend his complaint, judgment was rendered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed.
The complaint in this action against the Southern New England Telephone Company, after alleging ownership by the plaintiff of a tract of land with a frontage of 50 feet on Lincoln street, a public highway in New Britain laid out in 1886, and of land within the highway along this frontage, avers that the defendant and the American Telephone & Telegraph Company have constructed and utilize within the highway in front of the plaintiff's land a telephone line for the transmission of messages by wire consisting of overhead telegraph wires and cable, that these companies have no legislative authority to construct and operate said line, and that, if they have such authority it is one for the taking of land for private use, that it contains no provision for compensation for the taking of a right of way over the plaintiff's land, and that they have wrongfully failed to have the damage to plaintiff's premises assessed and paid before the construction and operation of said line.
Emil J. Danberg, of New Britain, for appellant. William F. Henney, of Hartford, for appellee.
PRENTICE, C. J. (after stating the facts as above). The Southern New England Telephone Company is the only defendant. The allegations of the complaint that the American Telephone & Telegraph Company were and are participating in the wrongful acts charged against the defendant, or were and are engaged in acts similar in kind to the defendant's, are wholly immaterial in the absence of an averment of some relation between them, and they have no rightful place in it. It should be read as charging the defendant with the acts complained of as wrongful.
The acts thus complained of are that it has constructed and is utilizing for the transmission of messages the wires and cable of a telephone line suspended over and along the highway In front of the plaintiff's premises. When this construction took place is not alleged. These acts of construction and operation are averred to have been and be unlawful for the reasons: (1) That the company has no legislative authority therefor; (2) that, if it possesses such authority, it is one for the taking of land for private use; (3) that such authority contains no provision for compensation for the taking of a right of way over the plaintiff's land; and (4) that the defendant wrongfully failed to have the damages to the plaintiff's premises assessed and paid before the construction and operation of the line.
The two alleged reasons that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sound Trefoil, LLC v. Old Mine Associates, LLC, No. CV05 4012487S (CT 11/9/2005), CV05 4012487S
...If the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law, then they are not entitled to the injunction. Mitchell v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 90 Conn. 179, 183, 96 A. 966 (1916). However, where a party seeks injunctive relief based on a statutory violation, the moving party is relieved of......
-
Stocker v. City of Waterbury
...A.2d 135. If the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law then they are not entitled to the injunction. Mitchell v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 90 Conn. 179, 183, 96 A. 966; Gorham v. City of New Haven, 82 Conn. 153, 156, 72 A. 1012; 6 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3d Ed.) § 28.22, p. T......
-
Adams v. Greenwich Water Co.
...of Wallingford, 72 Conn. 293, 305, 44 A. 235; Fisk v. City of Hartford, 70 Conn. 720, 732, 40 A. 906; see Mitchell v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 90 Conn. 179, 183, 96 A. 966; Whittlesey v. Hartford, P. & F. R. Co., 23 Conn. 421, 432. The subordinate facts found amply supported the ......
-
Southern New England Ice Co. v. Town of West Hartford
... ... Cole and Richard H. Deming, both of Hartford, for ... appellant ... Hugh ... M. Alcorn, David R. Woodhouse, and Harold E. Mitchell, all of ... Hartford, for appellee ... Argued ... before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, ... Action ... ...