Woodruff v. Catlin
| Decision Date | 31 October 1886 |
| Citation | 54 Conn. 277,6 A. 849 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | WOODRUFF v. CATLIN and another. (Two Cases.) |
Appeal from superior court, Hartford district.
Complaints for the condemnation of land for railway and highway uses.Judgment for plaintiff.Defendants appeal.The facts are stated in the opinion.
C. E. Perkins and C. E. Gross, for plaintiff.
S. O. Prentice and H. C. Robinson, for defendants.
PARDEE, J. Two cases argued together; complaints for the condemnation of land for railway and highway uses.
The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad and the New York & New England Railroad cross Asylum street, a much-used highway, in the city of Hartford, at grade.In 1885 and 1886the legislature of this state passed the following resolutions:
That a resolution of the general assembly approved April 4, 1884, providing for a bridge at railroad crossing at Asylum street, Hartford, be amended by inserting in section one, in the fifth line, after the word "railroads," the words "or for the carrying of the said tracks, and structure therefor, over said Asylum street," and in section four, in the thirteenth line, by adding, after the word "order," the words, "the carrying of said tracks, and structure therefor, over said Asylum street," so that said sections, as amended, shall read as follows:
Section 1.The city of Hartford, the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, and New York & New England Railroad Company shall construct a bridge, or other suitable structure, with proper approaches, so as to carry Asylum street, in said city of Hartford, over the tracks of said railroads, or for the carrying of said tracks, and structure therefor, over said Asylum street, at or near their present intersection with said street.
Sec. 4.If said city and said railroad companies shall not, within said period of three months, agree as aforesaid, and submit their said agreement in writing to the railroad commissioners, and obtain their approval thereto, then the railroad commissioners, Morgan G. Bulkeley and Henry C. Robinson, both of said Hartford, who are hereby constituted and appointed a board of commissioners for the state for said purpose, are empowered and instructed to decide what changes shall be made in the manner in which, and the place where, in the present line of said Asylum street, the tracks of said railroads cross the street, in order to abolish the present grade crossing, and insure the safety of the public thereat, and to determine by whom, and within what time, said changes shall be made.Said commissioners are hereby authorized to order the carrying of said tracks, and structure therefor, over said Asylum street, and direct such a change in the grade of said street, in its present line and direction, as they judge necessary and proper to the end aforesaid, and to order said railroad companies, or either of them, or the receiver, or other person or persons operating either of said railroads, to lay out, construct, and maintain a new line or lines of railroad for a distance not exceeding one-half a mile each side of said street, and within three hundred feet of the center line of the present tracks of said railroads, and may require any or all of the present tracks, within said limits, to be taken up and removed.Said commissioners are hereby authorized and empowered to order and direct a new highway to be laid out across said railroads, and for such distance on either side thereof as they may direct, in place of, or in addition to, said Asylum street.Said commissioners are empowered to make any and all orders relating to said improvement, and to all matters and things appertaining thereto, which they may deem necessary and proper, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as this general assembly might do and direct, and they may direct by whom, when, and how the work shall be performed, and who shall pay for the same, and what proportion of the entire expense, including land damages, each party shall pay and bear, and they may, in the event of any disagreement between the parties, determine the cost of the whole or any portion of the works, and make any and all orders as to the manner and amounts of payments which they may judge reasonable; provided, however, that in no event shall said city of Hartford be required to pay any portion of the cost of any changes in the present depot, or of the construction of any new depot, and not exceeding one-half of all the other expenses, including land damages incurred under this resolution.Approved March 26, 1885.
The act of 1886 is as follows:
Resolution conferring additional power upon the board of commissioners upon railroad crossing at Asylum street, Hartford.
Upon the report of the board of commissioners raised by the provisions of a resolution providing for a bridge at railroad crossing at Asylum street, Hartford, passed at the January session, A. D. 1884, it appearing that said board has, in compliance with the terms of said resolution, approved and adopted a plan for said improvement; that it is necessary, in the prosecution of said plan, to acquire, for the purposes of the improvement, various pieces of property now owned by sundry parties; that a portion of said property will in all probability have to be condemned, and taken by process of law, and that such property can be most expeditiously, conveniently, and economically condemned and taken under proceedings instituted by said board in its own name,—be it resolved:
Section 1.That said board of commissioners is hereby, in addition to the powers already conferred upon it, authorized and empowered to institute and prosecute in its own name, but for the use and benefit of the several parties to said improvement, as the case may be, proceedings for the taking of and appraisal of damages for any land or other property, including any already appropriated for railroad or highway purposes, which, in its judgment, may be necessary or proper to be taken for the purposes of the improvement which has been or may be ordered by said board under authority of said resolution.The proceedings for appraising damages to persons whose property is condemned shall be in the same manner and form as those prescribed by law for appraising damages for taking land for railroad purposes, excepting as modified by this resolution.The approval of any plan, or adoption of any vote or order, which contemplates, necessitates, or directs the use of any property not already owned or appropriated by the party, in the judgment of the board, needing the same for the purposes of the improvement, shall be a sufficient condemnation of such property to the purposes and uses of the several parties needing the same, and sufficient evidence that the same is taken for purposes of public convenience and necessity, and shall fully justify the appointment of appraisers to estimate damages, and their appraisal, as aforesaid.All property taken under said proceedings shall be deemed to be taken by the party for whose benefit the proceedings are had, and upon their completion, and the payment of the damages appraised, the right, title, and interest so taken shall, by virtue of said proceedings, vest immediately and directly in the party for whose benefit and uses said condemnation is made, as aforesaid, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as though said proceedings had been lawfully begun and prosecuted by and in the name of such party.
Sec. 2.The appraisal of damages made upon any proceedings, as aforesaid, shall, when it has been made, returned, and recorded, have the effect of a judgment, and execution may issue at the end of sixty days from the time when such return is made in favor of the party to whom damages may be appraised, and against the party for whose use and benefit the property appraised is appropriated.
Sec. 3.When any payments have been or are to be made for property taken as aforesaid, said board of commissioners may make any order which it may deem proper, directing any party to said improvement to contribute to any other party such sum or sums as it may fix and determine, to apply towards said payments.
Sec. 4.Said board may incur any expenses which it shall judge proper to the performance of their duties under said resolution, and to the wise and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Tobacco Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
...to recover on account of the condemnation of its right of way for highway purposes. Such is the law in Connecticut (Woodruff v. Catlin, 54 Conn. 277, 6 Atl. 849), in Nebraska (State v. Chicago, 29 Neb. 412, 45 N. W. 469; Chicago v. State, 47 Neb. 549, 66 N. W. 624, 41 L. R. A. 481, 53 Am. S......
-
Nashville St Ry v. Walters
...Mr. Justice Strong, dissenting in Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U.S. 659, 679, 24 L.Ed. 1036. Compare Woodruff v. Catlin, 54 Conn. 277, 295, 6 A. 849. 38 By some state courts a different rule has been applied, particularly as to the original cost of the crossing. Toledo, A.,......
-
The State ex rel. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co. v. Public Service Commission of State
... ... 430; Mo. Pac. Railroad Co. v ... Omaha, 235 U.S. 121; Erie Ry. Co. v. Pub. Utilities ... Comm., 254 U.S. 394; Woodruff v. Catlin, 54 ... Conn. 277; New York Railroad Co.'s Appeal, 58 Conn. 532; ... Railroad v. Tranbarger, 238 U.S. 67 ... L. H ... ...
-
American Tobacco Company and American Car Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
...47 Neb. 549; C. B. & Q. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226; Wabash v. Defiance, 167 U.S. 88; C. B. & Q. v. Commissioners, 200 U.S. 561; Woodruff v. Catlin, 54 Conn. 277; Cleveland City Council, 43 L.R.A. (Ga.) 641; People v. Railroad, 70 N.Y. 569; Harriman v. Railroad, 111 Tenn. 538; Detroit v. Osbor......