State v. Maine
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Information against the defendant for a nuisance in obstructing a highway. It was claimed in defense that the place obstructed was not a highway. The highway claimed had formerly been a part of the turnpike road of the Hop River Turnpike Company.
Read the full summary
Information against the defendant for a nuisance in obstructing a highway. It was claimed in defense that the place obstructed was not a highway. The highway claimed had formerly been a part of the turnpike road of the Hop River Turnpike Company. The charter of this company was repealed by the General Assembly in the year 1851, by the following resolution : “ Resolved, That the act of incorporation of the Hop River Turnpike Company be, and the same is hereby repealed; and the road belonging to said company, [describing its route,] shall be and remain a common or public highway, to be…
1Opinion of the CourtSanford, J.
The defendant in this case, admitting that he erected the obstructions complained of, seeks to justify the act as the absolute owner of the land on which they were placed, and claims that the resolutions of the General Assembly of 1851 and 1853, in so far as they purport to authorize the continuance of the road as a public highway *645after its discontinuance as a turnpike, were unconstitutional and void, because, in effect, they attempted the establishment of a new highway, while they provided no compensation for the owners of the land over which it passed.
What reason existed for the passing of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Imlay v. Union Branch RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
3Cited by19 opinions
- Burnquist v. CookSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co. v. StoneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Tifft v. . City of BuffaloNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- City of New London v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. RichSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.