Charles P. Dunn Co. v. Hartford

Connecticut Superior Court

Charles P. Dunn Co. v. Hartford

111 A.2d 813, 19 Conn. Super. Ct. 291, 19 Conn. Supp. 291, 1955 Conn. Super. LEXIS 75

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 7, 1955

DocketFile 92267

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.2d 813 (Charles P. Dunn Co. v. Hartford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles P. Dunn Co. v. Hartford, 111 A.2d 813, 19 Conn. Super. Ct. 291, 19 Conn. Supp. 291, 1955 Conn. Super. LEXIS 75 (Colo. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Alcorn, J.

The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that an ordinance passed by the court of common council of the defendant city is illegal, invalid and void. Further relief is sought in the form of an injunction or other appropriate measure to restrain the defendant from enforcing the ordinance. The *292 defendant joined issue and the parties have submitted the ease for decision upon an agreed statement of facts. No evidence was offered or heard.

Upon an examination of the file it appears that the ordinance objected to purported to change the established building line on land belonging to one Yellin on the east side of Main Street in Hartford from twenty-five feet to ten feet. This land adjoins the south side of plaintiff’s land. Yellin is not a party to the action. The building line on other properties within the block was not changed.

Every presumption must be made in favor of the validity of the ordinance unless it plainly appears that its terms are not reasonable or that its provisions are not rationally adapted to the promotion of public health, safety, convenience or welfare. Young v. West Hartford, 111 Conn. 27, 3.1; Murphy, Inc. v. Westport, 131 Conn. 292, 302; Windsor v. Whitney, 95 Conn. 357, 364. The agreed statement of facts gives the court no basis for concluding that the ordinance is invalid. The absence of essential elements is best illustrated by the recital in the plaintiff’s brief of numerous facts which are claimed to bear on the problem but which are totally lacking in the agreed statement.

The individual primarily concerned with the building line in issue is Yellin, the owner of the property involved. It is an indispensable requisite of an action for a declaratory judgment that all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint are parties to the action or have reasonable notice thereof. Practice Book § 277 (d); Fisher v. Kallenbach, 135 Conn. 147, 149; Brennan v. Russell, 133 Conn. 442, 445. This requirement has not been met in these proceedings.

Enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Alcorn, J.

The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that an ordinance passed by the court of common council of the defendant city is illegal, invalid and void. Further relief is sought in the form of an injunction or other appropriate measure to restrain the defendant from enforcing the ordinance. The *292 defendant joined issue and the parties have submitted the ease for decision upon an agreed statement of facts. No evidence was offered or heard.

Upon an examination of the file it appears that the ordinance objected to purported to change the established building line on land belonging to one Yellin on the east side of Main Street in Hartford from twenty-five feet to ten feet. This land adjoins the south side of plaintiff’s land. Yellin is not a party to the action. The building line on other properties within the block was not changed.

Every presumption must be made in favor of the validity of the ordinance unless it plainly appears that its terms are not reasonable or that its provisions are not rationally adapted to the promotion of public health, safety, convenience or welfare. Young v. West Hartford, 111 Conn. 27, 3.1; Murphy, Inc. v. Westport, 131 Conn. 292, 302; Windsor v. Whitney, 95 Conn. 357, 364. The agreed statement of facts gives the court no basis for concluding that the ordinance is invalid. The absence of essential elements is best illustrated by the recital in the plaintiff’s brief of numerous facts which are claimed to bear on the problem but which are totally lacking in the agreed statement.

The individual primarily concerned with the building line in issue is Yellin, the owner of the property involved. It is an indispensable requisite of an action for a declaratory judgment that all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint are parties to the action or have reasonable notice thereof. Practice Book § 277 (d); Fisher v. Kallenbach, 135 Conn. 147, 149; Brennan v. Russell, 133 Conn. 442, 445. This requirement has not been met in these proceedings.

Enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.2d 813, 19 Conn. Super. Ct. 291, 19 Conn. Supp. 291, 1955 Conn. Super. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-p-dunn-co-v-hartford-connsuperct-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack