Mooney v. Clark
Decision Date | 25 May 1897 |
Citation | 37 A. 506,69 Conn. 241 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | MOONEY v. CLARK, Mayor, et al. |
Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county; Samuel O. Prentice, Judge.
Suit by Frank J. Mooney against Frank E. Clark, mayor, and others, aldermen, of the city of Bridgeport, to restrain them from confirming a contract entered into by the agents of the city concerning the elimination of grade crossings. There was a judgment for defendants on demurrer sustained to the complaint, and plaintiff appeals. No error.
Robert E. De Forest and Jacob B. Klein, for appellant.
Daniel Davenport and George P. Carroll, for appellees.
The plaintiff in the complaint prayed for an injunction to restrain the city authorities of Bridgeport from taking certain action which he alleged they were about to take, and which would subject the taxpayers of that city to heavy illegal taxes. The superior court refused the injunction and dismissed the complaint. From that judgment the plaintiff has appealed to this court. If it were true that the consequences of the action complained of would follow as asserted by the plaintiff, then his complaint was not prematurely brought. "Obsta principiis" is an exceedingly good maxim to act upon in cases where illegal taxation is threatened. But we think the consequences feared by the plaintiff will not follow, and that there is no error in the judgment of the superior court. To make this view entirely plain, we must examine the case with some care, both as to the action itself and its legal effect.
The defendants are the common council of Bridgeport. On the 20th day of April, 1896, Frank E. Clark, William E. Seeley, and Frederick S. Stevens, who were appointed, by a resolution of the general assembly enacted in 1895, agents on behalf of that city to enter into an agreement with the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, reported to the common council of that city that they had, pursuant to that resolution, made an agreement with the said railroad company in respect to the matters mentioned in the said resolution, and submitted the same, which is:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rothkopf v. City of Danbury
...v. City of Norwalk, 150 Conn. 366, 190 A.2d 33; Lacava v. Carfi, 140 Conn. 517, 101 A.2d 795; Bassett v. Desmond, supra; Mooney v. Clark, 69 Conn. 241, 37 A. 506. Such actions, however, differ materially from the present one instituted by the plaintiffs to challenge the very constitutional ......
-
Kellogg v. School Dist. No. 10 of Comanche County
...district was entitled to an injunction restraining the district from allowing the schoolhouse to be used for improper purposes. In Mooney v. Clark, 37 A. 506, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a taxpayer enjoin the city from entering into an unauthorized contract. Hence it will be ......
-
Kellogg v. Sch. Dist. No. 10 of Comanche Cnty.
...was entitled to an injunction restraining the district from allowing the school house to be used for improper purposes. ¶15 In Mooney v. Clark, 37 A. 506, the supreme court of Connecticut held that a taxpayer could enjoin the city from entering into an unauthorized contract. Hence it will b......
-
Belford v. City of New Haven
...taxpayers to enjoin the officers of a town from performing illegal acts. Sauter v. Mahan, 95 Conn. 311, 314, 111 A. 186; Mooney v. Clark, 69 Conn. 241, 244, 37 A. 506 (1080); New London v. Brainard, 22 Conn. 552, 553, 557. It is a fundamental concept of judicial administration, however, tha......