Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-09-04
SUIT ENTERED
AGAINST THE CITY
Standard Oil Company Claims
That Municipality Has No Title
or Right to Highway Along the
Lake Shore Near Former How
ard Park


York entered in Chittenden county court
yesterday case against the city of Bur-
lington, in which 1t is claimed that the
city has unlawfully caused to be sur
veyed certain section of the land of
the Standard Oil company, namely "a
certain highway laid out on the lake
shore front and extending northerly from
Park avenue to what was formerly called
the Proctor farm" The Standard Oil
company is represented in this case by
Attorneys Ezra NJ. Horton and Warren
r. Austin.
This case extends back, II is understood.
to the time when the State fair was held
! in Burlington and road on the lake
shore, which has since fallen into disuse,
was employed to go to and from the fair
grounds. According to the appeal filed
yesterday in this case, survey of this
supposed road was made early in 1919
by City Engineer Thurman w. Dix and
his assistant, j. H. Sinclair, in accord
ance with resolution adopted by the
board OF aldermen of the city of Bur-
lington. December ., 1918, and the site of
said road was marked with monuments
The standard Oil company now claims
that the records show no highway to
nave existed at the point in their land
where the re-survey was made and that
call issued by the board of street COM
missioners Mossrs. f. S. Lanou, c. L.
Dolan and J. L. Bergeron. for the COM
pany to appear before that board in
April. 1919 was the first notice that the
Standard Oil company had that the city
mad any claim, right. title, or interest in
this property.
| 1t is also asserted in the Standard Oil
company's petition that this was not a
a do 81
and premises of the Standard OIL COM
pany, without right or notice, and under
pretense for d re-survey. 1t is said
that no citation. notice, or service Of
citation had been made on the company,
as should have been done, according to
the charter and ordinances of the city of
burlington and of the State Of Vermont,
and that no petition by three or more
freeholders was filed, as the law provides
in such cases, and that the question of
the necessity and good of this highway
was not heard or determined by or be-
fore the commissioners, as is provided
| by the charter and ordinances of the city
| of Burlington, and that the commits
sioners and the board of aldermen and
the city council are without jurisdiction
in the matter for the following reasons:
| % Not having previously determined
the public good, necessity, or convenience
required such a roadway.
t0 The record of the re-survey does
not afirmatively show that highway
was ever surveyed there, that the survey
of such highway had been properly
recorded, or the record preserved.
49, The record does not affirmatively
show that the examinations and boun-
dares of such highway cannot be ascer-
tanned.
az The record does not affirmatively
show that the boundaries as re-surveyed
are In the same places as the boundaries
under the original survey.
80 The record does not show that 12
days notice of the pretended re-survey
was given to the petitioner.
(6) The record shows affirmatively that
the pretended re-survey was made by the
city engineer. and not by the board Of
street commissioners, who, under the
charter of the city of Burlington, have
the same powers with respect to high
ways as se.ectmen in towns, and who
under the statute, should have made the
survey.
For these various reasons, the petition
sets forth that the proceedings of the
city were not authorized by law in this
case, that the city engineer proceeded
with the survey without any right or
legal notice, that there was really no
road at the place surveyed, and that the
proceedings are unlawful, unjustifiable
and wholly irregular and that they are
void for lack of Justification" And the
petitioners ask that the alleged re-survey
be held invalid. too indefinite and uncer-
tain, and the acts of the city engineer.
the board of street commissioners and
the board of aldermen be considered void
in this matter