Norwich Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Norwich
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Application to a judge of the Superior Court, under Public Acts of 1893, Ch. 231, § 13 (General Statutes, § 1993), to compel the defendant to purchase the plaintiff’s plant. A spedial commission of three was appointed to make the adjudication called for by the statute. The defendant filed two ‘motions before the commission to dismiss the cause, which were denied.
Read the full summary
Application to a judge of the Superior Court, under Public Acts of 1893, Ch. 231, § 13 (General Statutes, § 1993), to compel the defendant to purchase the plaintiff’s plant. A spedial commission of three was appointed to make the adjudication called for by the statute. The defendant filed two ‘motions before the commission to dismiss the cause, which were denied. The commission filed its report in court, and the defendant remonstrated against its acceptance, and also moved to recommit it, and subsequently to erase the cause from the docket for want of jurisdiction. A supplemental report was…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
The special commission properly denied the motion for the dismissal of the proceedings, filed before it on the ground that the statute upon which they are based is unconstitutional and void. Its only business was to execute the powers which had been confided to it by the order of the court, without inquiring into their legal validity. New Milford Water Co. v. Watson, 75 Conn. 237, 245.
A similar motion filed in the Superior Court was properly overruled on its merits.
The statute in question (General Statutes, §§ 1978-1997) allows cities, towns and boroughs, to set up plants for the manufacture…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- United States v. Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Gloucester Water Supply Co. v. City of GloucesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- New Milford Water Co. v. WatsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Company for Erecting & Supporting a Toll Bridge v. Connecticut River Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Lyman v. AdornoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
- Appleton Water Works Co. v. Railroad CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Atwood v. BuckinghamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1905
- State v. HurlburtSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
- Omaha Water Co. v. City of OmahaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.