Perkins v. City of New Haven

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Perkins v. City of New Haven

1 A. 825, 53 Conn. 214, 1885 Conn. LEXIS 46

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJune 26, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A. 825 (Perkins v. City of New Haven) 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

Perkins v. City of New Haven, 1 A. 825, 53 Conn. 214, 1885 Conn. LEXIS 46 (Colo. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Stoddard, J.

The plaintiffs’ contention in this ease is grounded upon the theory that the police commissioners of the city of New Haven are the agents of the city, and have therefore the power to contract so as to bind the city. Park, J., giving expression to the law while construing' the charter of the city of New Haven, said in Jewett v. City of New Haven, 38 Conn., 379:—“Now it is conceded that the boards of police and road commissioners have governmental duties imposed upon them by two of these enactments and in accordance with this statement of the law it has been universally agreed that the police commissioners of the city of New Haven are state or public agents engaged in performing public and governmental duties, and that they are not private agents or servants of the city, nor engaged in any matter of corporate and proprietary concern. Under this state of the law the legislative power saw fit to impose upon these public agents a single other public dut}*-, -that of selecting and providing voting places in the city and town of New Haven for all elections except school elections.

In performance of their duty in this respect the police commissioners hired a room to be used as a voting place at a meeting of electors to pass upon the adoption of a constitutional amendment, and also for the last .state and national elections. No city election was held at either of said times.

There is no other statute imposing the expense of providing voting places upon the city treasury.

It is the established custom in our legislation to impose upon the several town treasuries the various local expenses necessarily connected with state and national elections. [216]*216There is nothing in the charter of the city of New Haven indicating legislative intent to charge the city treasury with these expenses in the town of New Haven. Such an act of legislation would, be anomalous, and wholly at variance with the general and ancient practice in this state.

It is difficult to conceive a duty more plainly and exclusively public and governmental than that of regulating state and national”elections, and the police commissioners in the discharge of their duty in providing voting places for such elections are public agents, and not the agents of the city, and therefore can create no contract relation between the city and third persons in this respect.

The Court of Common Pleas is advised to render judgment for the defendant.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Stoddard, J.

The plaintiffs’ contention in this ease is grounded upon the theory that the police commissioners of the city of New Haven are the agents of the city, and have therefore the power to contract so as to bind the city. Park, J., giving expression to the law while construing' the charter of the city of New Haven, said in Jewett v. City of New Haven, 38 Conn., 379:—“Now it is conceded that the boards of police and road commissioners have governmental duties imposed upon them by two of these enactments and in accordance with this statement of the law it has been universally agreed that the police commissioners of the city of New Haven are state or public agents engaged in performing public and governmental duties, and that they are not private agents or servants of the city, nor engaged in any matter of corporate and proprietary concern. Under this state of the law the legislative power saw fit to impose upon these public agents a single other public dut}*-, -that of selecting and providing voting places in the city and town of New Haven for all elections except school elections.

In performance of their duty in this respect the police commissioners hired a room to be used as a voting place at a meeting of electors to pass upon the adoption of a constitutional amendment, and also for the last .state and national elections. No city election was held at either of said times.

There is no other statute imposing the expense of providing voting places upon the city treasury.

It is the established custom in our legislation to impose upon the several town treasuries the various local expenses necessarily connected with state and national elections. [216]*216There is nothing in the charter of the city of New Haven indicating legislative intent to charge the city treasury with these expenses in the town of New Haven. Such an act of legislation would, be anomalous, and wholly at variance with the general and ancient practice in this state.

It is difficult to conceive a duty more plainly and exclusively public and governmental than that of regulating state and national”elections, and the police commissioners in the discharge of their duty in providing voting places for such elections are public agents, and not the agents of the city, and therefore can create no contract relation between the city and third persons in this respect.

The Court of Common Pleas is advised to render judgment for the defendant.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A. 825, 53 Conn. 214, 1885 Conn. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-city-of-new-haven-conn-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack