Williams v. N.Y., N. H. & H. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 July 1898
• Citation: 40 A. 925,71 Conn. 43
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAMS, State's Atty., v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

40 A. 925

71 Conn. 43

WILLIAMS, State's Atty.,

v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 26, 1898.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; George W. Wheeler, Judge.

Application by William H. Williams, state's attorney, against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, for a writ of mandamus. From an order overruling a motion to quash the temporary writ, and granting a peremptory writ, respondent appealed for alleged errors in the rulings of the court No error.

The alternative writ issued by the trial court was as follows: "To the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, a corporation organized by the legislature of the state of Connecticut, located and having its principal place of business at New Haven, in the county of New Haven, state of Connecticut—Greeting: (1) Whereas, the city of New Haven is, and for many years has been, a municipal corporation created by the laws of the state of Connecticut, and located within the town and county of New Haven, and on the 20th day of October, 1894, the court of common council of said city passed the following order, directed to the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, a corporation created by the legislature of the state of Connecticut, and located and having its principal place of business in the city and county of New Haven, through which said city said railroad company, by its charter, has a right of way, and through which its tracks are laid, to wit: 'Ordered, that the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company erect an iron bridge over the tracks of said railroad company where said tracks cross Olive street, in the city of New Haven, said bridge to replace the wooden structure now there, and to be the full width of said street, with proper sidewalks on each side, and adequate to public interest and convenience, to the satisfaction of the board of public works of said city, within six months after the passage of this order.' (2) And whereas, on June 26th, 1895, the said New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, claiming to be aggrieved by said order of the court of common council, appealed to the Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, a judge of the superior court for the state of Connecticut, praying for a review of said order, and that the same might be annulled and made of no effect (3) And whereas, in consequence of said petition, the city of New Haven was cited to appear before him, and said city duly appeared by counsel; and on the 22d day of July, 1895, by an agreement of the parties in interest, the Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin passed an order appointing the Hon. Lewis Sperry, of the town of East Windsor, county of Hartford, and state of Connecticut, a committee to hear the parties, and to report to him, as judge of the superior court, a review of the order directed to said New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, and as to his doings under his said appointment. (4) And whereas, the Hon. Lewis Sperry, acting under and by virtue of his said appointment as aforesaid, met the parties in interest, to wit, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company and the city of New Haven, and gave a hearing upon said petition and order, at which said hearing witnesses were sworn on both sides, and the matters contained in said petition and order were fully heard. (5) And whereas, afterwards, on December 2, 1895, said Hon. Lewis Sperry submitted his report to said Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, and found as his conclusions 'that public convenience and necessity required that an iron bridge should be built at Olive street crossing, in the place of the wooden bridge then existing, and that the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company was not aggrieved by said order of the court of common council, and that said order was not unreasonable, unjust or oppressive to the petitioners.' (6) And whereas, on the 9th day of December, 1895, the Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin accepted and confirmed the report of said Lewis Sperry, and further ordered and adjudged that said orders of the court of common council of the city of New Haven above referred to, passed on the 26th day of May, 1894, be confirmed and made the order of the Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, judge of the superior court, in all respects, except as to the time therein prescribed for the erection of said bridge in said order; and, in lieu of said time so prescribed, the Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin ordered and adjudged that said bridge be erected and completed, to the satisfaction of the board of public works of said city, on or before the 1st day of July, 1897, without prejudice, nevertheless, to the right of the court of common council of said city prior to said day to order any repairs or changes in the now-existing wooden bridge mentioned in the order appealed from, which it might deem necessary. (7) And whereas, although said railroad company had due notice of the order of the Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, said railroad company failed, neglected, and refused to construct said bridge within the time prescribed in said order; and although said time has expired, and a demand has been made upon said railroad company to comply with the terms of said order, still said railroad company fails, neglects, and refuses to construct said bridge: Therefore, that due and speedy justice may be done in this behalf, it is hereby required and enjoined of you, the said New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, that on or before the 10th day of March, A. D. 1898, you commence the construction of said bridge as required by the order of the Hon. Simeon B. Baldwin, and complete the structure of said bridge, in conformity with said order, within four months from said 10th day...