Potter v. City of Putnam

• Decision Date: 21 November 1901
• Citation: 50 A. 395,74 Conn. 199
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: POTTER v. CITY OF PUTNAM.

50 A. 395

74 Conn. 199

POTTER

v. CITY OF PUTNAM.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 21, 1901.

Appeal from superior court Windham county; John M. Thayer, Judge.

Petition by Alfred H. Potter for a reassessment of damages caused by the alteration of a highway by the city of Putnam. From a judgment of the superior court in favor of the city, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

This action was heard before Thayer, J., who, after judgment for the appellee, made the following finding for appeal: "(1) This is an appeal, under section 36 of the charter of the city of Putnam (Sp. Laws 1805, p. 273), for a reassessment of benefits and damages, and the correction of errors alleged to exist in the report and schedule of an assessment of damages and benefits in the layout and change of a highway by the city of Putnam, as appears from the appeal on file. (2) The parties appeared, and, no formal hearing upon the petition having been had, agreed that a committee, to consist of Edwin A. Buck, of Windham, Davis A. Baker, of Ashford, and Oliver A. Hoscox, of Woodstock, might be appointed as a committee to reassess said benefits and damages, and the undersigned thereupon appointed said persons such committee. (3) Subsequently a majority of said committee made their report, dated March 4 1899, as on file, and the appellant filed his remonstrance to the acceptance of said report as on file. (4) The undersigned, having heard the parties by counsel, without evidence other than the papers on file, sustained said remonstrance upon the second ground, and recommitted said matter to said committee. (5) Subsequently a majority of said committee made its report, dated June 3, 1899, and the appellant filed his remonstrance to said report as on file. (6) The undersigned heard the parties upon said remonstrance, with their witnesses and counsel, and, from the evidence then introduced, found as follows: (a) Upon the original hearing before said committee the appellee, without objection, offered evidence to prove and claimed that it had not taken any land of the appellant by said layout and change of said highway, and that, if the appellant did own any land within said layout, said land had already, at the time of said layout, become by dedication or by immemorial usage subject to the easement of public travel, and had in fact become and then was a public highway, to as complete a degree as it became by such layout, and that no damage had resulted to the appellant from said layout, (b) A majority of said committee found as thus claimed by the appellee, (c) Said committee, after said recommittal, did not hear evidence or counsel; it being understood by the parties that there was to be no further evidence or hearing of counsel by said committee, but that the new report was to be made upon the hearings had before the first report was made. (d) After said matter was recommitted as aforesaid to said committee, and before any meeting of said committee after such recommittal, Mr. J. P. Carpenter, one of the attorneys for the appellee, informed the committee, none of whom were present at the time of the hearing and recommittal, by communicating with Mr. Baker, one of the majority, and stating to him the ground for the recommittal; and afterwards, before said committee met, but on the day appointed for them to meet, said Carpenter sent by mail to said Buck, one of said committee, a typewritten report, ready for the signatures of said committee, which was by said Buck handed to the majority members of said committee, and was by them afterwards signed and returned to the undersigned, and became the second report on file. (7) The appellant claimed that the facts stated in the petition were admitted by the appearance of the appellee, and the appointment of the committee at its request, and that the committee could not consider and determine the question whether by said layout the appellee had taken any land of the appellant, and it was the duty of said committee to make a reassessment of the damages, and that said report ought not to...