Woodward v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 03 March 1890 |
| Citation | 19 A. 511,58 Conn. 486 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | WOODWARD et al. v. REYNOLDS et al. |
Case reserved from superior court, New Haven county.
H. T. Blake, for plaintiffs. W. L. Pardee, for defendants.
TORRENCE, J, The general question arising upon the facts set forth in the submission in this case is whether it is the duty of the selectmen and town treasurer of New Haven to issue the bonds of said town for the payment of land purchased by the New Haven public park commission, under the resolution of the general assembly and the votes of the town of New Haven, referred to in said submission. It is agreed in the submission that the resolution has been accepted and ratified by the town; that the commission has been lawfully constituted under the resolution; that the town in June, 1889, passed certain votes which in terms, at least, provide for the execution and issue of bonds under the resolution; that, acting under the resolution and votes aforesaid, the said commission has in fact purchased or bargained for lands of the plaintiffs for a public park for the price of $5,000; that the purchase was made in November, 1889; the plaintiffs have tendered a deed of said land acceptable to said commission; that before said deed was so tendered the town of New Haven, at its annual town meeting held in December, 1889, passed certain votes, which in terms, at least, prohibit the issuing of bonds to pay for said land; and that, both prior to and after the passage of the last-named votes, the commission requested said selectmen and town treasurer to issue said bonds for said purpose, and that they refused to do so. The selectmen and town treasurer say they are willing to issue said bonds as requested, "provided they are not legally prevented by said votes at the annual town-meeting of December, 1889."
Perhaps the case at bar could be disposed of by a decision upon the validity and legal effect of the votes passed at said annual meeting; but inasmuch as, from the briefs submitted on behalf of the town, doubts seem to be entertained as to whether, even if no such votes had been passed, it would be the duty of the selectmen and town treasurer to issue the bonds to pay for said land, we will consider the case in that aspect also. It is quite unnecessary to consider the legal effect of the votes passed at the annual town-meeting, for we are satisfied, from an examination of the record, that all of said votes which can in any way affect this case are invalid and of no legal effect, because the warning of the meeting at which they were passed contained no notice that any such matter would be brought before said meeting for action. Under our statute, and according to the decisions of this court, such an omission rendered said votes of no legal effect.1 Hayden v. Noyes, 5 Conn. 391; Wright v. School-Dist., 53 Conn. 576, 5 Atl. Rep. 708.
The action of the town, then, at the annual town-meeting, may, so far as the votes in question are concerned, be laid out of the case.
It may be claimed, however, that the resolution of the general assembly itself, in section 4, prohibits the commission from making "any expenditure, or contract of expenditure, involving liability of the town or city of New Haven, exceeding the amount which shall have been previously appropriated by the town or city of New Haven for their use;" and it is claimed that, at the time of the purchase in question here, no such appropriation had been made, and therefore the commission could not bind the town by such purchase. Just what effect is to be given to the language quoted above, from section 4 of said resolution, it is unnecessary now to decide; for, if we give it the utmost effect that can be claimed for it, the questions involved in the case at bar are in no wise affected; So far as we know, it is not claimed that the commission could not make the purchase in question here so as to bind the town, provided a sufficient appropriation had previously been made; but it is denied that such appropriation had been made. Inasmuch as, if such an appropriation was made at all in; he present case, it was made at the special town-meeting of the town of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cope v. Childers, Case Number: 32513
...Co. v. Buchanan, supra. To appropriate means to distribute, to set apart a sum of money for a particular object. Woodward v. Reynolds, 58 Conn. 486, 19 A. 511; Menefee, State Treas., v. Askew, 25 Okla. 623, 107 P. 159. ¶14 On January 30, 1946, from the bulk of a public fund within the State......
-
City of Bridgeport v. Agostinelli
...is an authorization by the General Assembly to make expenditures and incur liabilities for specific purposes. Cf. Woodward v. Reynolds, 58 Conn. 486, 490, 19 A. 511. In order to answer the questions reserved for our decision we must determine the intent of the legislature as expressed in th......
-
Newhouse v. First Nat. Bank
...City & P. R. Co., 7 Neb. 357; State v. Derham, 61 S. C. 258, 39 S. E. 379, 381; State v. Bordelon, 6 La. Ann. 68, 69; Woodward v. Reynolds, 58 Conn. 486, 19 A. 511, 512; Wulzen v. Board of Sup'rs of City and County of San Francisco, 101 Cal. 15, 35 P. 353, 356, 40 Am. St. Rep. 17; People v.......
-
Thomas Bennett Estate, Inc. v. City of New Haven
...that the proceeds shall be devoted to paying the cost of it, would be a sufficient compliance with this requirement. Woodward v. Reynolds, 58 Conn. 486, 490, 19 A. 511. The purpose of the clerk in adding to the proposed submitted to the board of aldermen the words we have quoted, as found b......