Town of Underhill v. Town of Essex
| Decision Date | 12 January 1892 |
| Citation | 23 A. 617,64 Vt. 28 |
| Parties | TOWN OF UNDERHILL v. TOWNS OF ESSEX JERICHO AND WILLISTON |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
GENERAL TERM, OCTOBER, 1891
This was a petition by the town of Underhill asking to be relieved from a judgment assessing it for the support of a bridge between the towns of Williston and Essex. The case was referred to commissioners, and was heard upon their report at the September term, 1890, Chittenden county, Rowell, J presiding. The court apportioned the expense of maintaining the bridge between the towns of Williston, Essex, and Jericho, and released the town of Underhill from further expense. To this judgment the town of Jericho excepted.
The judgment is reversed, and judgment rendered that under the law Jericho cannot be assessed and that the expense of maintaining the bridge be borne by Essex and Williston, in the proportions reported, and that Jericho recover its costs.
M H. Alexander, and Seneca Haselton, for Jericho.
Taft J., being a tax payer in Williston, did not sit.
By the judgment of the Chittenden County Court in 1859, the towns of Underhill and Jericho were assessed to assist the towns of Essex and Williston in the erection and maintenance of a bridge across the Winooski river between the towns last named, on the ground that the former towns would be benefited thereby. This is a petition brought by the town of Underhill in 1888, asking that the original cause be brought forward upon the docket of the court, and a new assessment or apportionment be made, and that Underhill might be released. On the report of commissioners appointed to hear and report the facts and make a new apportionment of the expense of maintaining the bridge, the court rendered judgment apportioning a part of such expense to the town of Jericho. To this judgment the town of Jericho excepted claiming that the law had been so changed that it was no longer liable to contribute to such expense. This is the question presented for consideration.
Before the passage of No. 18 of the Acts of 1884, towns benefited by the building and maintaining of a highway or bridge located in other towns, when the town or towns in which they were located would be excessively burdened by building and maintaining them unaided, could be assessed therefor. R. L. 2960 to 2966, 2975 to 2979, and No. 16 Acts of 1882. No. 18 of the Acts of 1884 provides in s. 1, "No town shall be assessed toward the expense of maintaining any highway or bridge in another town, or of building any such highway or bridge except as provided in sections 2958 and 2959 of Revised Laws and as hereinafter provided." The provisions of this act referred to were repealed by s. 7 of No. 16 of Acts of 1886 and need not be considered in full. It continues in force and extends the application of R. L. 2978 and 2979. R. L. 2978 relates to the building and maintaining of a bridge between two towns, and gives the court power to reapportion the expenses thereof every five years between the towns in which the bridge is located and other towns benefited. R. L. 2979 gives towns required to build and maintain a bridge on or near the line of two or more towns by an act of the legislature, the right to have the expenses thereof reapportioned every five years. Section 7 of No. 18 of the Acts of 1884 repeals R. L. 2975 to 2977, which gave to the court power to relieve and assist a town excessively burdened by being required to build a bridge or highway wholly therein by assessing other towns benefited in the vicinity, and also repeals No. 16 of the Acts of 1882 relating to the same subject matter. It also repeals "all acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith." The contention is whether that part of R. L. 2960 to 2966, which gives the court power to apportion a part of the expense of a bridge over a stream between two towns to other towns benefited, is repealed as inconsistent with the provisions of No. 18 of the Acts of 1884.
The towns of Essex and Williston contend that these sections provide for an assessment of other towns benefited, and the sections 2975 to 2977, repealed in terms, relate to giving relief to towns excessively burdened by building and maintaining a bridge or highway wholly within such towns. But such relief is given by casting a part of the excessive burden upon other towns in the vicinity, especially benefited thereby. The assessment upon other towns under both of these provisions of the Statute is made upon the same general basis of benefit. The whole of ss. 2960 to 2966 could not be repealed without repealing necessary provisions for apportioning the expense of such bridge between the towns which it connects. Besides, No. 18 of the Acts of 1884 applies to a bridge across a stream between two towns inasmuch as it leaves s. 2978, which relates to that subject, in force, and makes it applicable not only to a bridge between two towns, but generally to highways and bridges wholly in one town. The provisions of R. L. 2960 to 2966, for the assessment of other towns benefited by a bridge across a stream between two towns are inconsistent with the provisions of No. 18 of the Acts of 1884. This act starts with the declaration, " No town shall be assessed toward the expense of maintaining any highway or bridge in another town, or of building any such highway or bridge, except as provided in sections 2958 and 2959 of the Revised Laws, and as hereinafter provided."
It then proceeds to make the provisions of the excepted sections of the Revised Laws, which originally were applicable only to a bridge between two towns or on...
To continue reading
Request your trial