Platt v. Town of Milton
| Decision Date | 28 August 1886 |
| Citation | 58 Vt. 608,5 A. 558 |
| Parties | PLATT and others v. TOWN OF MILTON and others. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from county court, Chittenden county.
These were exceptions on the part of the city of Burlington to the judgment upon the report of commissioners establishing a certain highway through the towns of Milton and Colchester, and assessing the city of Burlington for a portion of the expense of construction. The commissioners reported that the towns of Milton and Colchester would be excessively burdened by defraying all the expenses of said highway, and that the city of Burlington and other towns therein named should be assessed for their proportionate share of such expense. The city of Burlington alone objected to the acceptance of the report—First, in writing, for that it is grievously assessed thereby; and, second, orally, for that it appears that said road is not, by its inhabitants, for their own use, and will not be used by them, wherefore it cannot be assessed at all, as it is not enough that its inhabitants derive benefit therefrom by the way of increased trade and business coming from the island towns. The county court found that the evidence showed that the inhabitants of Burlington did not need the road for their own use, and that they will not use it much, but thought it legally sufficient, as a ground of assessing the city, that they will be benefited thereby by the way of bringing increased trade and business to them. Exceptions by the city of Burlington.
Whittemore & Wheeler and James A. Brown, for petitioners and South Hero.
The assessment of a portion of the expense of building the road and bridge upon Burlington was just, and in strict compliance with the statute. R. L. §§ 2975-2977. The right to assess does not depend alone upon the one element, travel of the people of the town assessed. The statute makes no reference to such travel, either in laying or assessing the expenses of highways. A highway or railway may be of great benefit to a town, though the large majority of its people themselves seldom, if ever, find it necessary to travel over them. Active business and trade is universally conceded to be a great benefit to a town.
W. L. Burnap and T. E. Wales, for the city of Burlington.
The county court based its decision upon the benefit to be derived by the merchants of Burlington through an increase of trade from the island towns. This is not the benefit contemplated by the statute. That benefit is one arising from use only,—travel by the inhabitants of the contributing town. If the principle laid down by the court is the one underlying this statute, it would compel every central or railroad town to maintain the highways...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut & P.R.R. Co. v. Town of St. Johnsbury
...render final judgment in highway cases unless the case is to be proceeded with in the court below. French v. Barre, 58 Vt. 567; Platt v. Burlington, 58 Vt. 608; Brock v. Barnet, 57 Vt. 172; Hogaboon Highgate, 55 Vt. 412; Penniman v. St. Johnsbury, 54 Vt. 306. When final judgment has not bee......
-
Connecticut & P. R. R. Co. v. Town of St. Johnsbury
...in highway cases, unless the case is to be proceeded with in the court below. French v. Bar re. 58 Vt. 567, 5 Atl. Rep. 568; Piatt v. Milton, 58 Vt. 608, 5 Atl. Rep. 558; Brock v. Barnet, 57 Vt. 172; Hogaboon v. Highgate, 55 Vt. 412; Penniman v. St. Johnsbury, 54 Vt. The highway cases where......
-
Bronson v. Estate of Phelps
... ... WALKER, J. Timothy P. Phelps, late of Milton, died in 1864, leaving a will dated October 8, 1863, which was duly probated. The questions ... ...