Town of Southington v. Clark
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. In March 1836, Joseph Clark and others of Southington, and Elisha A. Cowles and others of Meriden, brought their petition to the county court holden at Hartford, on the fourth Tuesday of that month, for a highway in the town of South-ington, stating that the road was of common convenience and necessity, and that the select-men had been applied to, and had neglected and refused to lay out the road.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. In March 1836, Joseph Clark and others of Southington, and Elisha A. Cowles and others of Meriden, brought their petition to the county court holden at Hartford, on the fourth Tuesday of that month, for a highway in the town of South-ington, stating that the road was of common convenience and necessity, and that the select-men had been applied to, and had neglected and refused to lay out the road. No objections being offered against this application, the court, at the (term to which the petition was returned, appointed a committee to make enquiry, and if they should be of opinion…
1Opinion of the CourtStorks, J.
The plaintiffs in error claim, that the county court erred, in appointing a committee to enquire into the convenience and necessity of the road in question, and in accepting their report, [prior to finding the fact, that the eelect-men of the town had neglected or refused to lay out such road.
It is undoubtedly necessary, in an application to the county court to lay out a road, that such neglect or refusal should be averred, as it is indispensable in order to give the court jurisdiction. And it js, of course, necessary that such averment should be proved, and found by the court to be true,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Treat v. Inhabitants of MiddletownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1830
- Waterbury v. Town of DarienSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1830
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ives v. Town of East HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1880