Staples v. City of Bridgeport
| Citation | 75 Conn. 509,54 A. 194 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1903 |
| Parties | STAPLES v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT et al. |
Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Action by James Staples against the city of Bridgeport and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Thomas M. Cullinan and John Cullinan, for appellants.
Robert E. De Forest and Jacob B. Klein, for appellee.
The plaintiff, a taxpayer of Bridgeport, seeks to restrain the city and its officials and agents from making an appropriation and laying a tax to be expended in remodeling the city hall in said city, and to restrain a committee appointed by the common council to remodel said building from proceeding with said work. The material facts in the case are these: in 1899 and in 1901 the city, at its request, obtained from the General Assembly certain legislation, in the form of two resolutions —one approved May 23, 1899, and the other approved May 21, 1901. The resolution approved May 23, 1899, provides, in section 1, as follows: "That the common council of the city of Bridgeport be and it is hereby authorized and empowered, when in a legal meeting assembled, by a concurrent vote of a majority of the members of said body, present and absent, subject to the approval or disapproval of the mayor of said city, as provided in the charter of said city, to issue under the corporate name and seal, and upon the credit of the city of Bridgeport, bonds or other certificates of debt, of such denomination as may be deemed for the best interests of the city, to an amount not exceeding in the whole the sum of three hundred thousand dollars, which bonds shall be denominated municipal building bonds, and the same or the avails thereof when sold as hereinafter authorized, shall be applied by vote of said common council to the purchase of land for, and the erection of a building for the departments, charities and police and the city court of Bridgeport, and for the removal of the present city hall belonging to said city, and the erection of a new city hall upon the plot of land, bounded by State, Broad, and Bank streets, where the present city hall now stands, and to perfect the title to such land if it shall be found necessary, which buildings shall be erected by and under the control and supervision of a committee consisting of the mayor, the city hall committee, appointed April 4th, 1898, and three other voters, taxpayers of said city, and not more than two of them to be from the same political party, to be appointed by the mayor, but no portion of said bonds or the avails thereof shall be used for any other purpose whatsoever." The other provisions in section 1, and the other sections of the resolution, have no particular bearing upon the questions in the case. The material parts of the other resolution read, in substance, as follows: That in addition to the bonds which the city was authorized to issue by the resolution approved May 23, 1899, it is authorized and empowered to issue bonds or other certificates of debt "to an amount not exceeding the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which bonds shall be denominated municipal building bonds, and the same or the avails thereof, when sold as hereinafter authorized, shall be applied by the vote of said common council for the purposes set forth in said special law, and also for the furnishing of the buildings, and the completion of the grounds and approaches to said buildings, authorized to be constructed by said special law, and under the direction, control and supervision of the committee named in section one of the said special law as amended by section four of this resolution, but no portion of said bonds or the avails thereof shall be used for any other purpose whatsoever." Section 4 of this resolution amends section 1 of the first resolution by striking out the words "the mayor," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Hugh Sterling"; also by striking out the words "and three other voters, taxpayers of said city, and not more than two of them to be from the same political party, to be appointed by the mayor," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "and the three other persons, voters and taxpayers of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Windham Taxpayers Ass'n v. Board of Selectmen of Town of Windham
...cases that arose prior to the enactment of the act. See, e.g., Madison v. Kimberly, 118 Conn. 6, 169 A. 909 (1934); Staples v. Bridgeport, 75 Conn. 509, 54 A. 194 (1903); Terrett v. Sharon, 34 Conn. 105 (1867). It does not necessarily follow that "[i]f town meeting approval is necessary to ......
-
Hopkins v. Hamden Bd. of Ed.
...of § 10-15 may be construed to permit descretion and to mean 'may.' Wentz's Appeal, 76 Conn. 405, 409, 56 A. 625; Staples v. Bridgeport, 75 Conn. 509, 54 A. 194. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated a blunt rule of statutory construction: 'The cardinal principle of statutor......
-
Jones v. Madison County Com'rs
...be nullified by a refusal to perform them. I think I am sustained in the views so far expressed by the case of Staples v. Bridgeport, 75 Conn. 509, 54 Atl. 194, in which a question similar to the one in this case is discussed. That the authority to issue the bonds was merely permissive is f......
-
Town of Madison v. Kimberly
...It does not appear that any rights had become vested by reason of any action taken by the zoning commission. See Staples v. Bridgeport, 75 Conn. 509, 511, 514, 54 A. The present case is governed by the familiar principle that the grant of power to enact ordinances ordinarily implies the pow......