State v. R.R. Comm'rs

Decision Date20 July 1888
Citation56 Conn. 308,15 A. 756
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE ex rel. NEW HAVEN & DERBY R. CO. v. RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS.

Case reserved from superior court, New Haven county.

Application by the New Haven & Derby Railroad Company for mandamus to compel the railroad commissioners to act upon the location of a new passenger station and freight depot in the city of New Haven.

S. E. Baldwin, for relator. G. M. Woodruff, for defendants.

CARPENTER, J. In December, 1887, the New Haven & Derby Railroad Company was using its railroad in such a manner as to cross Meadow street, in the city of New Haven, with three of its tracks, at grade. Across that street a large amount of switching was done. In 1886, by special act of the legislature, (Sp. Laws, 385,) the company was required, either voluntarily or upon proceedings instituted by the railroad commissioners, to take such action as to lessen the switching across the street. With that end in view, the company, in December last, decided to abandon its passenger station and freight depot on Meadow street, and relocate them at a point considerably west of Meadow street, namely, west of Commerce street, and south of Silver street. The site thus selected was crossed at grade by three other streets. The company decided to extend Silver street so as to accommodate the public travel, and to discontinue so much of the three other streets as interfered with the location selected. This location was modified so as to reserve to the city the right to maintain its sewers, and to require the company, at its own expense, to construct and maintain a bridge, for foot-passengers only, over the site along one of the streets. On January 18, 1888, the railroad commissioners duly approved of the abandonment of the depots at Meadow street, and on the 23d day of May following they approved of the new site selected, except so far as the location involved the discontinuance of the streets; and in respect to that matter the finding and order are as follows: "As to the discontinuance and change of Hill, La Fayette, and Liberty streets, asked for in said petition, we are of the opinion that, if the premises above described are to be condemned and used for the purposes designated in said petition, it will be unsafe to use the said streets as they now exist at grade; still we think that under this proceeding we have no authority to order the discontinuance and changes asked for in the petition, and therefore decline so to do." This suit is an application for a mandamus to require the commissioners to act upon the matter of the discontinuance of the streets. The defendants admit all allegations of matters of fact to be true, but deny that they have by law jurisdiction to proceed and render judgment in the matter. The case is reserved for the advice of this court.

The question seems to be this: Can the railroad company take the land used for streets for depots or depot grounds? If it can, it will be conceded that the commissioners have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove of such taking, and that it is their duty to do so. The company was chartered in 1864, with such powers as were granted to railroad companies by the public act of 1849. That act, as found in the present Revision in section 3460, authorizes the company to lay out its road, not exceeding six rods wide; and for the purpose of cuttings, embankments, and procuring stone and gravel, and for necessary turnouts, to take as much more real estate as may be necessary. Section 3476 relates specifically to the matter of highways, and is as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Costello
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 6 Julio 1971
    ...86 Conn. 151, 84 A. 727; Water Commissioners v. Manchester, 87 Conn. 193, 199, 87 A. 870; State ex rel. New Haven & Derby Railroad Co. v. Railroad Commissioners, 56 Conn. 308, 313, 15 A. 756.' In addition, the plaintiff has rights, powers and privileges stemming from § 16-246b of the Genera......
  • Mattice v. Chicago Great Western R. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 8 Junio 1906
    ... ... Co., ... 129 Iowa 507, 105 N.W. 436; Schrimper v. C., M. & St. P ... R. Co., 115 Iowa 35; State" v. B., C. R. & N. Ry ... Co.., 99 Iowa 565; Van Vrankin v. Railway Co., ... 68 Iowa 576 ...  \xC2" ... ...
  • Hart v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 12 Junio 1907
    ...power was thereupon reserved. We decided that they had the power, and the location was subsequently approved. State v. Railroad Commissioners, 56 Conn. 308, 315, 15 Atl. 756. Against these precedents, which might be multiplied indefinitely, may be cited several of recent date, which may see......
  • Dermott Townsite Co. v. Wooten
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 24 Febrero 1917
    ...railroad would have been practically useless." See, also, U. S. Trust Co. v. A. & P. R. Co., 8 N. M. 673, 47 Pac. 725; State v. Commissioners, 56 Conn. 308, 15 Atl. 756; Wooten v. Dermott Town-Site Co., 178 S. W. 598, and cases there Hence we overrule appellants' first, fourth, and fifth as......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT