New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Offield
| Decision Date | 12 May 1905 |
| Citation | 60 A. 740,78 Conn. 1 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO. v. OFFIELD. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Application by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company to a judge of the superior court for the appointment of appraisers of two shares of stock of the New Haven & Derby Railroad Company, owned by Charles K. Offield. From a judgment granting the relief prayed for, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 59 Atl. 510.
Charles K. Bush and Edward H. Rogers, for appellant. George D. Watrous, Harry G. Day, and Henry H. Townshend, for appellee.
The second defense in the defendant's answer was that the plaintiff already had, under certain amendments to its charter, which were set forth at length, power to do all that it proposed, by means as advantageous to the public as it would have, should it take the defendant's shares of stock. As courts take judicial notice of all the private acts of this state, and as the judge of the superior court, in dealing with this cause, was exercising part of the judicial powers of that court, this defense presented a mere question of law, already disposed of in accordance with our advice, and the demurrer to it was properly sustained. Gen. St. 1902, § 697; New Milford Water Co. v. Watson, 75 Conn. 237, 52 Atl. 947, 53 Atl. 57.
Upon the hearing on the questions of fact raised by the first defense, it appeared that the directors of the plaintiff company had voted to authorize the expenditure of $275,000, under the supervision of its president, for improving and double-tracking about four miles of the New Haven & Derby Railroad, next west of the intersection of that railroad with the Naugatuck Division of the plaintiff's railroad; that from this intersection to New Haven by way of the Naugatuck Division was over 21 miles, and by way of the New Haven & Derby railroad less than 11 miles; and that the work under the vote was already under contract and in progress. The president of the company testified that it was its intention to make all the improvements described in the application as proposed, in case of the acquisition of the defendant's stock, and that it had begun the work on the tracks lying west of the Naugatuck Division because the necessity for such improvements there was so great that the company could not wait till these two shares had been acquired. There was no error in the admission of this evidence. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Cranfill v. Smith
...personal property, and can be condemned and taken as other personal property. Offield v. N. Y. Railroad Co., 203 U.S. 372; N. Y. Railway Co. v. Offield, 78 Conn. 1; Spencer v. Seaboard Airlines Ry. Co., 137 N.C. 2 Lewis on Eminent Domain (3 Ed.) sec. 413; Cincinnati v. L. & N. Railroad Co.,......
-
Narragansett Electric Lighting Co. v. Sabre
... ... N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Offield, 77 Conn. 417, 59 A. 510; Id., 78 Conn. 1, 60 A. 740; Offield v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 203 U. S. 372, 27 S. Ct. 72, 51 L. Ed. 231; Opinion of the ... As the court said in N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Offield, supra; "This proceeding is due process." See also Miller v. New York (1872) 15 Wall. 478, 21 L. Ed. 98; Looker v. Maynard (1900) 179 U. S. 46, 21 S. Ct. 21, 45 L. Ed. 79; Offield v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. (1904) 77 ... ...
-
Hiland v. Ives
...domain. Weaver v. Ives, supra; Winchester v. Cox, supra; New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. Offield, 77 Conn. 417, 421, 59 A. 510; s.c. 78 Conn. 1, 2, 60 A. 740, aff'd, 203 U.S. 372, 27 S.Ct. 72, 51 L.Ed. 231; Starr Burying Ground Assn. v. North Lane Cemetery Assn., 77 Conn. 83, 88, 90, 58 A. 467......
-
Norelli v. Mut. Sav. Fund Harmonia
...Co. v. Pitkin, 14 Conn. 174; Maine Stage Co. v. Longley, 14 Me. 444; Badger v. Bank of Cumberland, 26 Me. 428; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Offield, 78 Conn. 1, 60 A. 740, affirmed 203 U.S. 372, 27 S.Ct. 72, 51 L.Ed. 231. Therein the pertinent rule was recognized, and it was further state......