Case ID: conn_39/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PARK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edmund Terry vs. The City of Hartford.
    A city street was laid out wholly through the land of A, leaving a narrow strip of land between the new street and the land of B, which had no direct access to the street except through the land of A. Held that the fact that the land of B was -not benefited by the laying out of the street unless it could be united with the land of A by purchase or sale, did not make an assessment of benefit's upon B's land illegal.
    Appeal from an assessment of benefits from the laying out of a city street; taken, under the provisions of the city char ter, to Judge Sanford of the Superior Court.
    The general facts are the same with those of the case of Arthur Terry y. The City of Hartford, next preceding. The land of the appellant upon which the benefits in question were assessed., lay on the west side of the new street, and was wholly separated from it by the land of the said Arthur Terry, the latter being a narrow strip extending the whole length of the new street, and forty-eight feet wide at one end, and ten feet at the other. The committee, to whom the case was referred, found that the land of the appellant was not benefited by the. laying out of the street unless it could be used in connection with the land of the said Arthur, and that the appellant had no direct way of passing from his land to the street except over the land of the said Arthur. The committee found however that the land was benefited by the laying out of the street, and that the sum of $2,129.30, (the same amount assessed by the city authorities,) was the just proportion of the expense of the new street which should be assessed upon the land of the appellant.
    Judge Sanford accepted the report of the committee, and rendered judgment ior the city to recover that amount of the appellant. The appellant brought the record before this court by a motion in error.
    
      Gtoodman, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Cole, for the defendant in error.
   PARK, J.

We discover in this case no error npbn the record. It is another case where the questions discussed are mainly questions of fact, rather than of law. The views which we have expressed in the case of Arthur Terry v. The City of Hartford, decided at the present term, apply to this case and are decisive of it.

There is no error in the judgment complained of.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.