Mooney v. Clark

37 A. 506, 69 Conn. 241, 1897 Conn. LEXIS 54
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedMay 25, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 37 A. 506 (Mooney v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mooney v. Clark, 37 A. 506, 69 Conn. 241, 1897 Conn. LEXIS 54 (Colo. 1897).

Opinions

Andeews, C. J.

The plaintiff, in his complaint, prayed for an injunction to restrain the city authorities of Bridgeport from taking certain action which he alleged they were about to take, and which would subject the taxpayers of that city to heavy, illegal taxes. The Superior Court refused the injunction and dismissed the complaint. From that judgment the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

If it were true that the consequences of the action complained of would "follow, as asserted by the plaintiff, then his complaint was not prematurely brought. Obsta prineipiis, is an exceedingly good maxim to act upon in eases where illegal taxation is threatened. But we think the consequences feared by the plaintiff will not follow, and that there is no error in the judgment of the Superior Court. To make this view entirely plain we must examine the case with some care, both as to the action itself and its legal effect.

The defendants are the common council of Bridgeport. On the 20th day of April, 1896, Frank E. Clark, William E. Seeley and Frederick S. Stevens, who were appointed by a resolution of the General Assembly, enacted in 1895, agents on behalf of that city to enter into an agreement with The Hew York, Hew Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, •reported to the Common Council of that city that they had, pursuant to that resolution, made an agreement with the said railroad company in respect to the matters mentioned in the ■resolution, and submitted the same, reading as follows:—

“ Whereas, the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, at its last session, passed a resolution which was approved June 22d, 1895, and which provides that in order that the safety of the public may be insured, all crossings at grade.over the main tracks of the railroad of the Hew York, Hew Haven & Hartford Railroad Company in the city of Bridgeport, shall be abolished, and also that said city and said railroad company may within six months after the passage of said resolution, agree upon the manner, plans, method and time in which said crossings at grade shall be abolished, and upon all other matters mentioned in Sec. 6 of said resolution, and what amount or what proportion, or what items [245]*245of the cost thereof shall be paid by the city of Bridgeport, and for the purpose of making said agreement, empower the Mayor of said city of Bridgeport and William E. Seeley and Frederick S. Stevens, to act for said city: “ Now, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of said resolution of the General Assembly and subject to the approval of the board of railroad commissioners, the said city of Bridgeport acting herein by its agents, Hon. Frank E. Clark, its mayor, and the said William E. Seeley and Frederick S. Stevens, thereunto duly authorized by said resolutions, and said New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, acting herein by John M. Hall, its vice-president, hereunto duly authorized, do hereby agree as follows : 1. For the purpose of abolishing the crossings aforesaid, the location, grade and plan of said railroad through said city and the number of its tracks, shall be substantially as shown upon the plans marked ‘ Plans for the abolition of grade crossings on the Main Line, New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, city of Bridgeport, Conn.’—said plan being signed by the respective agents of the parties hereto, and the work of excavation, construction, alteration, and grading of said tracks, streets, approaches, bridges and abutments, according to said plans, shall be done by said railroad company, both upon its own land and upon the highways affected by said plans, except as hereinafter specifically otherwise provided. The grades of the railroad tracks and of the highways shall be as shown upon said plans. The stone abutments of all bridges shall be of equal workmanship of the abutments of the existing bridge across Fairfield avenue (west), unless modified by the railroad commissioners. Said railroad company, during the progress of said work, shall have the free use of such streets or portions of streets and the right to temporarily close such streets as may be necessary for the convenient prosecution of the work. Crescent avenue and Railroad street are hereby extended from their present easterly termini to the westerly line of the proposed freight station yard of said railroad company east of Central avenue, and East Washington avenue shall be extended and constructed by said city to Seaview avenue, provided said [246]*246railroad company elects to lay a siding on the north side of its main tracks as hereinafter provided, and so much of South Railroad avenue between Broad and Main streets, as is occupied by the structure of said railroad company as shown on said plan, is hereby discontinued as a highway, and Clark, Wilmot and North and South Railroad avenues, west of Fair-field avenue (west), and all streets and private ways whether existing or projected upon or across the property of said railroad company along its main line tracks, not shown upon said plans, are hereby discontinued, except the private ways between a point opposite the east end of Union street and Fairfield avenue (east). South Railroad avenue is hereby extended from Wordin avenue to Howard avenue forty feet wide. Said railroad company shall lay and maintain a track at grade upon the south side of South Railroad avenue, from Fairfield avenue eastward to the westerly line of South avenue, free from all burdens or assessments of any kind so long as said railroad company maintains the same, said track to be connected by proper switches with such side or spur tracks as now exist or as may hereafter be granted or permitted by said city. Said railroad company shall bridge, as shown upon the plans, the following named streets: Bostwick avenue, Hancock avenue, Howard avenue, Wordin avenue, Iranistan avenue, Park avenue, South avenue, Myrtle avenue, Warren street, Lafayette street, Broad street, Main street, Wall street, Fairfield avenue, Sterling street, Noble avenue, Clarence street, Kossuth street, East Main street, Pembroke street, Hallett street, Seaview avenue, Central avenue, and Bishop avenue, with the head room in each case of not less than twelve feet in the clear between the crown of the street and the bottom of the girder, unless otherwise shown on the plans.

“ The location of the pipes, wires, poles or tracks of any water, gas, telephone, or electric light, telegraph or power company, or street railway company, and all public of private sewers or drain pipes, shall be changed at the expense of said several companies, whenever in any manner they interfere with the prosecution of said work or the construction or maintenance of the same according to said plans, in [247]*247such manner or in such time as the board of railroad commissioners shall order.

“ For the accommodation of manufacturing and other shippers in East Bridgeport, said railroad company shall construct a fifth track leading from its proposed freight station in East Bridgeport, or from some point between said freight station and Seaview avenue, to the easterly line of Hallett street, and the same may be placed either on the north or south side of the main tracks, but shall cross Seaview avenue on a level with said main tracks.

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

Related

Windham Taxpayers v. Bd. of Selectmen, No. Cv 94 0049807 S (Mar. 13, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2232 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Messina v. Bridgeport Water Poll. Ctrl., No. Cv90 0277269s (May 22, 1991)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 4448 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1991)
Highgate Condominium Ass'n v. Watertown Fire District
553 A.2d 1126 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)
Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co.
427 A.2d 822 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1980)
Belford v. City of New Haven
364 A.2d 194 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1975)
Rothkopf v. City of Danbury
242 A.2d 771 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1968)
Bassett v. Desmond
101 A.2d 294 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1953)
Dyer v. City of Newport
94 S.W. 25 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1906)
Fair Haven & Westville Railroad v. City of New Haven
59 A. 737 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1905)
Vincent v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
59 A. 491 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1904)
Kellogg v. School District No. 10 Comanche Co.
1903 OK 81 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1903)
McKeon v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
61 L.R.A. 736 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1902)
Wheeler v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
178 U.S. 321 (Supreme Court, 1900)
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Wheeler
45 A. 14 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1900)
Wheeler v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
41 A. 808 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 A. 506, 69 Conn. 241, 1897 Conn. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mooney-v-clark-conn-1897.