Town of Milford v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
| Decision Date | 28 April 1953 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | TOWN OF MILFORD v. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES et al. ATLANTIC REFINING CO. v. WILKINSON. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
William L. Beers, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was John N. Reynolds, New Haven, for defendant Atlantic Refining Co. in the first action and the appellant (plaintiff) in the second action.
Richard H. Lynch, Milford, for plaintiff in the first action and the appellee (defendant) in the second action.
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.
The first-captioned action, coming to us as a reservation, originated as an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from the action of the commissioner of motor vehicles in issuing to the Atlantic Refining Company a license to sell gasoline. The latter, which was shall call the company, was not at first made a party to the appeal. Subsequently, it intervened and, after filing an answer, has joined in this reservation. The named defendant has taken no active part in the matter.
The stipulated facts present the following situation; During May, 1946, upon the application of John and Herman Holst, owners of the property known as 247 Broad Street in Milford, a certificate of approval was duly issued by the board of zoning appeals of that town for the use of the premises as a retail gasoline station. the certificate was filed with the commissioner of motor vehicles, to be called the commissioner, but no license to sell gasoline was then issued by him.
A short street lies between 247 Broad Street and a large tract of land in the center of the town. The tract is known as the Milford green. It has existed from time immemorial and is kept up by the town as a park in the same manner as similar greens are maintained in various municipalities throughout the state.
In March, 1952, a subsequent owner of 247 Broad Street, unaware of the issuance of the certificate in 1946, applied to the board of zoning appeals, herein called the board for another certificate of approval of the premises as a retail gasoline station. The application was made for the benefit of the company, which had arranged to purchase the property. The board held a hearing at which all interested parties, including the company, were fully heard and at which evidence of existing traffic conditions was introduced. On April 3, 1952, the board denied the application.
Thereafter, the existence of the certificate of 1946 was discovered, and on April 14, 1952, the commissioner, proceeding on the bases of that certificate, issued a license to the company for the sale of gasoline on the premises. The plaintiff took an appeal from his action and the court has reserved the matter for our consideration. The six questions upon which our advice is sought are recited in a footnote. 1
The commissioner purported to act under what is now General Statutes, § 2536. This sets forth that no person shall sell gasoline for use in motor vehicles or offer it for sale 'without having applied for and received from the commissioner of motor vehicles a license to sell such gasolime'. Section 2541 provides that any person aggrieved by any action of the commissioner performed under authority of § 2536 may take an appeal therefrom to the Court of Common Pleas for Hartford County.
The company takes the position that the plaintiff town was not entitled to appeal from the commissioner's action in issuing the license because, it is urged, the town did not qualify as an aggrieved person under § 2541. One may be aggrieved within the meaning of the various statutes authorizing appeals when he is affected only in a representative capacity. Keating v. Patterson, 132 Conn. 210, 212 note, 43 A.2d 659. While that case dealt with the right of a town to appeal to this court from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas which reversed a decision of the liquor control commission, the reasoning there applied is equally pertinent to the case at bar. This is owing to the circumstance that the location of the proposed gasoline station is in close proximity to the Milford green, which, the defendants concede, is owned by the plaintiff town. See Public Acts 1911, c. 180. The significant fact is that it is a public park, maintained by the town primarily for the benefit of all the inhabitants of Milford. Fenwich Borough v. Old Saybrook, 133 Conn. 22, 29, 47 A.2d 849 The plaintiff's interest is to keep the green free from possible sources of danger, and this interest is general in scope, since it contemplates the safety and welfare of all who visit the green. The presence of a nearby gasoline station, with its attendant automotive traffic, might well provide a definite hazard for those seeking to enjoy the facilities of the park. As the representative of the public interests of all its inhabitants, the plaintiff is an aggrieved person within the provisions of § 2541 and, as such, was entitled to take an appeal from the commissioner's action. See Rommell v. Walsh, 127 Conn. 16, 21, 15 A.2d 6.
Certain of the questions reserved deal with the legality of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andross v. Town of West Hartford, 17742.
...to vindicate public interests may be the attorney general, the state's attorney or the town itself. See Milford v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 139 Conn. 677, 681, 96 A.2d 806 (1953); Truesdale v. Greenwich, supra, at 432, 165 A. 201; but see Wheeler v. Bedford, supra, at 249, 7 A. 22 (n......
-
State Through Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of State Police, Riverboat Gaming Div. v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Com'n and Horseshoe Entertainment
...state agency where the interests represented by the agencies were geographically distinct or separate. See Milford v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, 139 Conn. 677, 96 A.2d 806, 808 (1953). See also Moede v. Stearns County, 43 Minn., 312, 45 N.W. 435 (1890). Moreover, prior to the enactment of th......
-
State by State Highway Com'r v. Cooper
...(Ch.1873); Trustees of the Village of Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Paige 510, 3 N.Y.Ch.Rep. 536 (Ch.1834); Town of Milford v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 139 Conn. 677, 96 A.2d 806 (Sup.1953); 38 Am.Jur., Municipal Corporations § 720, p. 424. The precise designation of the borough's interest i......
-
Simko v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Fairfield
...concerned is always entitled to represent such interests by participating as a party to an appeal. Milford v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 139 Conn. 677, 681, 96 A.2d 806 [1953]; Keating v. Patterson, 132 Conn. 210, 212n., 43 A.2d 659 [1945]; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., § 266." Id., at 658,......