The daily morning journal and courier., 1896-01-08

| Trinity College V, Hartford, S2 Conn.,
 46b, note; Clapp V, Hartford. So Conn,
 66, 22O. Its terms plainly embrace q
 preceding like the present and they
 must govern 1t, unless 1t be regarded
 as excepted from their operation by the
 provision in the act of 1895 as to the
 final and conclusive" effect of the or
 der of the court or judge, In our opin-
 ion these statutes are not inconsistent with each other. The order of Judge | Fenn was final and conclusive upon | the parties as respects all matters
 which the law confined to his determin- | alton, and upon which they were duly | heard. No injunction, for instance,
 would lie to forbid, as inequitable, what he, within those limits, had decided to l be equitable in the premises" But
 if he exceeded his jurisdiction in any particular whatever he thus did beyond the authority given him by law, was coram non judice, and the proper sub
 iect Of review by appeal, Beard's ap-
 peal from county commissioners. 64 Conn, 526,534; Hopson's appeal from county commissioners, 65 Conn.,, 40: Lawton V. commissioners of highways, Gaines, 1791S1; People V. Wilson, 119 N. T., 515; 2S No East. Rep, 1,064; Ex- | parte Bradlaugh l.. K. 3 c, B. Div,
 509
 | Any other construction of the act of | 1895 would render possible unseemly conflicts between the different tribunals | Of the commonwealth. For defect of | jurisdiction in an order made by the
 superior court of a judge of that court,
 in proceeding under it's provisions, it is clear that there must be some ju- dioial remedy, and that the proper
 place in which to seek it would be the superior court itself. Could an in- junction be sought there from one judge against the enforcement of the order of another? Could he be asked as q chancellor to enjoin the execution of an order made by himself, when sitting as an appellate tribunal to revise the pro- ceedings of the authorities of muni- clpality? We cannot impute to the general assembly an intention to com pei or permit resort to remedies of this description, in face of statute giving in plain terms right to direct appeal to this court, as to which the OILY citlHI lHddC py tliV APPSpCSS io that. so far as 1t effects the case in hand, 1t has been repealed by impli- ca .ion,
 A remedy equivalent to such an ap- peal is afforded under the practice ex- isting in many of our sister states by the common law writ of certiorari.
 It issues to revise the proceedings of
 municipal corporation, and when is- sued, the controversy between the par ties interested becomes one of judicial nature Dillon on Municipal Corpo- ra tions, sec 925-92S. The fact that this writ has never been used in this state Is an additional reason why statutes granting an appeal from such proceed ings should not be too narrowly con- strued Williams V, Hartford & N. H.
 K, R. Go. 13 Conn, 11ot1S Grelle v.
 Pinney, 60 Conn, 47S,4Ss.
 The right to appeal is given by gen. eral statutes, section 1,lS7.
 The right of appeal given by general statute No 1,137 cannot be treated as the field by implication, having respect to such proceedings as that now before us unless the right of appeal for err TOT in law from all Judgments of the superior court given by general stat ute No. 1,t29 has been similarly re- stricted. To hold this would be to re- verse the rules that repeals by impli- cation are not favored and will never
 be presumed where both the new and old statutes may well stand together. The appellee so contends that it was
 not necessary for Judge Tenn to decide | in any question of law in coming to | the conclusion stated in his order, as | that under the statutes, must have been determined by his opinion that ] the conditions imposed by the mayor | and common council were "equitable in the premises" Nothing can be deemed l equitable within the meaning of the statutes comforting jurisdiction to great equitable relief which does not come within the limits of the jurisdiction 1 granted; and what those limits are is | a question of law inherent in the judg-
 ment rendered.
 | The motion to erase Is therefore de- nied
 | The finding shows that the railway 1 company prior to June 5, 1895, has con- structed under legislative authorities and agreeably to conditions imposed by 1 the mayor and common council of New | Britain (to certain of which affecting
 one of its lines, had agred in writing. 1 under it's corporate seaD a railway in | the principal streets of that city and
 extending in one direction to Plainville and in another to Berlin, all of which
 was in operation, and that they having | been given by the general assembly power to lay addition tracks in some | thirty other streets, including three | known as Chestnut, East and Jubilee l streets, it presented to the mayor and
 common council a plan showing the ! particulars required by section of l chapter DCI4XIX of the acts of 1893. l After due hearing the mayor and common council approved the plan subject to that as modified by by cer- 1 tain conditions. From this order of | conditions approved, the company took | the appeal to Judge Fenn, which is now | before us for review and he has found
 that the conditions imposed were just, | reasonable. legal and equitable" con- 1 firm the order and make it in all parts | his own
 l The first reason for appeal is that | there was error in holding that the | company's right to lay tracks on the | street in question, and to use such | fpr T11rnpco of a