Town of New Milford v. Litchfield County
| Decision Date | 24 March 1898 |
| Citation | 70 Conn. 435,39 A. 796 |
| Parties | TOWN OF NEW MILFORD v. LITCHFIELD COUNTY. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Case reserved from court of common pleas, Litchfield county; Gideon H. Welch, Judge.
Action by the town of New Milford against Litchfield county to recover one-third of the sum expended by the plaintiff town for the permanent improvement of one of its highways, brought to the court of common pleas in Litchfield county, and reserved by that court upon a finding of facts for the consideration and advice of this court. Judgment advised for plaintiff.
Frederic M. Williams and Donald T. Warner, for plaintiff.
Albert P. Bradstreet and Samuel A. Herman, for defendant.
The legislature at its session in 1895 (Laws 1895, p. 655) passed "An act to provide for the improvement of public roads." It provided that any town in the state might, in each year, by pursuing the steps therein named, improve a portion of its public roads, and in section 6 said: "When any road shall be constructed under this act one third of the cost of said construction shall be paid for out of the state treasury, * * * one third of the cost shall be paid for out of the treasury of the county within which such road is constructed, and one third of the cost shall be paid for out of the treasury of the town within which such road is constructed." Section 7 of the said act provides that the selectmen of the town within which any such road has been constructed shall file a certificate of the cost thereof with the highway commissioners of the state, and that the said highway commissioners shall file a certificate with the county commissioners of each county between December 15th and 31st of each year, and that "said certificate shall state the amount of money due the various towns by the county for the construction and permanent improvement of roads under this act, and the county commissioners shall cause to be paid to the town said money as set forth in said certificate out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated." The complaint in this action, in its first count, alleges that the town of New Milford, in the year 1895, did permanently improve a portion of its public roads, pursuant to the provisions of said act, and expended in such improvement the sum of $2,940, and that all the steps were taken and things done which entitled it to receive, and made it the duty of the county of Litchfield to pay to it, one-third of the said amount, to wit, the sum of $980. In the second count the complaint alleges a like liability upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldwell v. Meskill
...for such expenses.' See also Dowe v. Egan, 133 Conn. 112, 48 A.2d 735; Cummings v. Looney, 89 Conn. 557, 95 A. 19; New Milford v. Litchfield County, 70 Conn. 435, 39 A. 796; Williams v. New Haven, 68 Conn. 263, 36 A. 61; Whitney v. New Haven, 58 Conn. 450, 20 A. 666. The defendants' claim e......
-
Groton & Stonington Traction Co. v. Town of Groton
... ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, New London County; Carl Foster, Judge ... Action ... by the Groton & Stonington Traction Company against ... upon subjects not foreseen when the annual appropriations are ... made. New Milford v. Litchfield County, 70 Conn ... 435, 439, 39 A. 796; Williams, State's Attorney, v ... New ... ...
-
Sewerage District No. 1 of Siloam Springs v. Black
...a city in discharging sewers into a stream to the damage of land owners. 155 Mo. 283; 119 Ark. 169; 113 Id. 442; 68 Conn. 263; 70 Id. 435; 39 A. 796; 9 Col. App. 828; 48 L. R. 691; 71 Hun. 232; 1 Wood on Nuisances (3 Ed.), § 434. 13. The decree here is not fatally defective; it is definite ......
-
Cummings v. Looney
...a public corporation, or its public officers, from the discharge of a governmental duty imposed by statute. New Milford v. Litchfield County, 70 Conn. 435, 439, 39 Atl. 796. As a rule, other jurisdictions are in accord with our holding. Under §§ 1793 and 1814, the selectmen must call the sp......