Morning journal and courier., 1893-08-18
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

The S1Xtystn1rd volume or the Con.
 necticut Law Reports, Which Has
 Just Been Issued, Contains Many
 Decisions of Local Interest-Sargent
 & Co.'S Sewer Assessment, the Lef-
 hngwen Appeal and the Hillhouse
 Lien Suits Among the Number.
 The decisions of the supreme court in number of interesting and important cases in which the decisions are published for the first time, and which are of consider able local interest, are contained in the sixty third volume of the Connecticut Law Reports, which has just been issued. They are as follows:
 In Luton vs. town of Vernon the plaint- | if sued ss administrator of Joseph Luton, who lost his life by backing of from a ! highway into a mill pond. There was l row of large trees along the edge of the l highway and beyond them and outside of | the limits of the highway there wss side walk, beyond which the ground sloped rapidly down to the mill pond. Luton night, when 1t was quite dark, and by some means backed his wagon through the TOW of trees and over the sidewalks and into the pond. There was never any explanation of how he came to be backing across the road In that way, as both he and the man riding with him were drowned. The court held that 1t was a place where there ought to have been g railing or barrier. which Is in fact required by statute; that the trees would have been sufficient if they had stood 80 close passed between them; that Luton had the same right to have the road protected and made safe as if he were at the time driv- ing along instead of backing across it; and that upon sll the facts the town was liable. In this matter of highways, point of interest to the towns along the shore has been decided by Judge Townsend of the United States district court, and is con- tained in a supplement to the present volume. The case is Greenwood vs. Town of Westport. A small navigsble stream emptied into the sound within the town, and a drawbridge had been built over 1t at place where the highway crossed it. The plaintiff, master of vessel, wished to pass through the drawb bridge up the stream, but found nobody in attendance, and while | waiting the tide ran out and his vessel set tied upon 6 rock and was injured. The | court held that the town was bound in ! law to have an attendant at the bridge or within call, to open 1t for vessels, and not
 having had one was liable for damage to the plaintiffs vessel.
 In Hillhouse vs. City of New Haven, 1t
 is held that where city cuts down or ele.
 yates street, 1t cannot require the ad-
 joining owner to make a sidewalk until it
 has graded the ground for the walk. In
 other words, the city Is held bound to
 grade. by cutting down or filling, the
 whole width of the street, so that the
 ground will be all ready for the laying oi
 the walk when the city orders one laid.
 In Howe vs. Andrews, 1t is held that
 where mill owner has @ right of pond
 age over the land of another person
 above his mill, the land owner has right
 to use the Ice upon it over his own land
 for domestic purposes, just as he would
 have 8 right-to use the water itself, but
 that he would have no right to cut and re
 move the Ice for selling 1t, or In any way
 by removing the ice to reduce the quanti
 ty of water to the injury or inconvenience,
 of the mill owner.
 In city of Middletown vs. New York
 New Haven and Hartford Railroad com pany it Is held that the act of 1S49, requir
 ing railroad companies to make and main
 tain all structures erected over their track at highway crossings is still in force ant
 not repealed by the act of 1889, which pro , vides for the repair of the planking ant , other surface material by the town, the lat E ter act being held to apply only to struct ) ures erected under its particular provis ions.
 In Martin vs New York and New Eng , land railroad company, 1t is held that un der the statute which makes A railroa, , company liable for property burne , by fire communicated by it's lo | | comotiVe, where a building was thus se , | on fire, and while it was burning tn wind blew sparks from 1t upon anothe | building, which took fire snd wae burned 3 | the railroad company was liable for th 5 l destruction of the second building. Tn ? l court holds that where fire is started b 7 | the locomotive and extends to other pror
 erty without the aid of any other inter g vening cause, the injury is done by tn 1 l railroad company that caused the first fire a In Kellogg vs. city of New Britain 1t - held that the authority given to the city t t establish a system of sewerage and to tax
 ! Piper's Brook for the purpose, paying th
 | ties owning an interest in it did not GOT
 stitute any defense for the polluting of th
 brook when 1t ran through the plaintiff
 ! lands, as the city had not had the plaintiff
 damage assessed and had paid him nott . ing.
 In Kost vs. Reilly the plaintiff was 8 real estate broker and had procured a pu = chaser for the defendants property on 8 , | agreement for commission if he made
 ! Auo huu Stl1eE IQAQ6 U } agreement by which the former was t take the property and pay down 8 certai ? ! sum and another sum on taking possessio
 and the balance in monthly paymen,
 thereafter. The purchaser paid down th B first sum, but afterwards decided to abar
 don the purchase, the seller retaining th : ! sum first paid. The court held that ther r, was no sale and that the broker was nc f entitled to his commission. The contrst q was regarded as an agreement for futur = ! sale and not as sale.
 In Spencer vs. Phillips a question ( | much interest arose which had not befor been fully passed upon by our courts. Tn
 plaintiff in 1857 had transferred to the d, :, l fendant as trustee ten shares of Adam
 Express company's stock, to be held fc '. .. Mrs. Garland, the mother of his decease T wife, the transfer providing that the trul A tees should "pay over to her the incom
 and dividends thereof during her life, ,"an ], ! upon her decease transfer the stock to hil :, or his representatives. The consideratio y stated WAS friendship and affection. 4
 become sixty six, mainly as stock div dends. The question was whether th . ffty-six new shares went to her estate 6 dividends or to the plaintiff as stock. Tn
 court held that it went to the plaintiff g
 l stock.
 :, In Usher vs. Waddingham it Is held the : though it Is a universal rule that prir
 oipal is liable for the contracts of a authorised agent, yet that where 8 perso , deals with an agent, knowing him to h such, and voluntarily gives exclusive cred 2 to the agent, the principal Is not liable. | In Millard's appeal from probate it held that person is "in falling oiroum
 stances" within the meaning of our ir
 solvent law, when he is acting in oontem
 plation of stopping his business he is nc able to continue 1t and meet his payments In Greele vs. Pinney our recent ststut
 with regard to ballots came up for furthe 8 construction. was a city counter and a ] | the same time candidate for tow , office. Votes for both city and town office
 were dropped into the same box. He, as
 city counter, took out tue city ballots sn 8 handed the town ballots to the town count . CTS, in addition to which he took out number of unsesled envelopes to be throw out. It was held that he ''tock part In tn 3 count" and that in consequence the vote in the box cast for him as town capdi
 date could not be counted for him, th statute embracing In that term all thos acts of the counter which were within tn natural and proper scope of his duties an, , which gave him sn opportunity to psrpe ! trate a fraud. But it was held that thi 1 act did not affect ballots cast for him il other boxes in the town which he had hat | no opportunity to reach and disturb