New Britain herald., 1929-07-26
Full Text of Ruling Handed Down Necessitating Special Legislature

wise of described land for the Tu- berculosis Sanatorium at East Lyme. This is an institution of the state under q State Commission, engaged in the public work of establishing homes for the care and treatment of persons suffering from tubercu- losis and as necessity arises charged with the duty of erecting in loca tions or their designation sanatoria for the care and treatment of such persons.
 Public Purpose Manifest
 General Statutes, No. 2G3S and 2639. The land for which the ap- propriaton in the Act before us is made is to provide additional area for the site of the sanatorium at East Lyme. The public purpose is manifest. It meets the tests we ap- piled in Connecticut College for Women versus Calvert, 87 Connec- ticut 42l, since the purpose is pub lie or governmental in its nature and the institution is administered for the benefit of the public without dis elimination. The legislative appro- priation is for the specified public purpose of acquiring by condemna- ton or otherwise a fully described and specified tract of land for the site of the already established sana- torium This constituted legislative determination to take this land and of the necessity for the taking. The determination of the necessity must be made by the legislature either it. self or by some body of persons to whom it delegates its own power of making this determination.
 Water Commissioners V. Johnson, S6 Conn. 15l, 157 Under the gen eral practice the legislature deter mines that there is necessity for the exercise of the power of eminent do
 main; but it may, as it has power to do, designate the particular property or rights to be taken.
 Nichols on Eminent Domain, 1907 1 Ed.) Vol. 1, No. 3333. In Water Com missioncrs V. Johnson, supra, we say, "In the present case the legislature determined the question only to the extent of deciding that there was a necessity which justified tn grant of
 power made. It did not, as it occa- sionally does, go further and desig-
 nate any particular source from
 which the city's water-supply might
 be drawn, or the defendants proper
 ties and rights as being subject to
 appropriation, and thus, either di-
 rectly or indirectly, pass upon the
 question of a taking of the waters of
 Stony Brook, or of an appropriation
 of the defendants properties" /"
 When the property to be taken, or it's location, or source, is designated within reasonable bounds, the legis-
 lative designation is final. The exer-
 else of this power is political in
 character. "This determination is
 conclusive unless and until it is suc-
 cessfully attacked for unreasonable
 ness, bad faith or abuse of power"
 Water Commissioners V. Manches-
 ter, 80 Conn. G71; Water Commis-
 sioners V. Johnson, supra at page
 159 Every taking in invitum of
 private property is subject to judi
 cial determination whether the talk
 ing fall within the prescribed limi-
 tation,-whether in truth it is
 founded upon public necessity. The
 occasion for the exercise of this
 power, the exigency of the occasion,
 and the necessity are for the Legis-
 lature, as well as the determination
 of whether the public welfare re-
 quires or justifcs its exercise, but
 when the taking has been ordered
 the fixing of the compensation is a
 judicial question.
 Enfield Tall Bridge Co. V. Conn.
 River Co.,, ' Conn., 28 "The charac-
 teristics of such an act of appro-
 priation are known and we'll under
 stood. It must appear that the gov
 ernment intended to exercise this
 high sovereign right, by clear anc
 express terms, or by necessary i'm. , pl'cation, leaving no doubt or uncer. , tainty respecting such intent" . Boston L. R. R. Corp. V. Salem : and Lowell R. Co. and others, ? Gray , (Mass) 36, 37. The purpose in the , Act before us is the acquiring by condemnation a defined tract ot { land for a state institution which is , open to the public without discrim f ination. The intention of the Legis 7 laturc to take this land and it's in. ! tention that its legislative act should 7 express the necessity for the taking are as it seems to us as necessarily p implied as though they had been di , rectly expressed in suitable words 2 Authority to Condemn
 These conclusions make it impos. 5 sible to hold this Act to be q mers appropriation act,
 l Two other attacks are made IDIOT the validity of this Act as an exer, : else of the power of eminent domain ! In taking these up we should have before Us certain principles which : are applicable to all statutes which t provide for the taking of land by !. right of eminent domain. "Where the land of an individual is taken 1T r lnvitum for public use, under the : provisions of positive law, every ra | qulslte of the statute must be com t piled with, and this must appear or r the face of the proceedings fol i taking the land," Crawford V - Bridgeport, 92 Conn. 4&1, 435. e The authority to condemn will b; Q strictly construed in favor of the e owner of the property taken anc $ against the condamnor and tn; 2 authority must be strictly pursued i Lewis on Eminent Domain, section. y @87, 388. Poughkcepsie Bridge Co r. y Sanford, 108 U. Y. t83, 490; "Nt r. statute, however, can avail to justify t the taking of private property fol j. public Use without just compensa Q tlon.'
 $ McKcon v New York and New r Haven Railroad Company, 75 Con l. nactlcut 3t&,34G. Pubic nccessit, l. may iu tify the taking, Lut canno 1T Su tlfy thn taking without compen + atlGn.' PEGtt Bros, Co. V. Water l, buy, = Conn. 5&l, 55l.