Manson v. N. York, N. Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. . 592 New Britain (City of), Dunham v. New Haven (Town of), Diamond Match Co. v. New York & New England R. R. Co. v. City of 378 510 Waterbury New York, N. Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., Manson v. 592 17 Old Farm School Dist., Gravel Hill School Dist. v. 244 Phelps v. Phelps 359 Pinches v. Swedish Lutheran Church Postal Telegraph Co., Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. 183 334 Potter v. Waite 236 403 401 Swedish Lutheran Church, Pinches v. Scutt v. Town of Southbury Shoe & Leather Bank's Appeal from Commissioners Simons's Will, (In re) Southbury (Town of), Scutt v. Sprague Manufacturing Co., Waterman v. State v. Glidden State v. Nyman Strong, Lemmon v. Thomas, Hurlbut v. Towner, Bell v. 364 Waterbury (City of), N. York & N. England R. R. Co. v. R.Co. 19 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. THE CITIZENS' WATER COMPANY OF BRIDGEPORT vs. THE BRIDGEPORT HYDRAULIC COMPANY. Fairfield Co., Oct. T., 1886. PARK C. J., CARPENTER, PARDEE, LOOMIS and GRANGER, Js. In 1853 the common council of the city of Bridgeport accepted a proposition made by one G to supply the city with water, and granted him (with a right of assignment) the exclusive right to lay pipes in the streets so long as a full supply of pure water should be furnished. In 1857 the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company was incorporated with power to acquire, and which did acquire, all the rights of G under the vote of the city and became charged with all his duties and this company soon after expended a large sum of money in acquiring property and establishing its water works. Held that, so long as this company supplied the city with an abundance of pure water, the legislature had no power to give another corporation the right to lay its pipes in the streets of the city for the purpose of supplying the city with water. Although the state may be no party to, and have no interest in, the subject matter of a contract, yet if it invests a corporation, otherwise pow erless, with power to make it, the legislature is thereafter concluded in reference to it. It is, as a lawful contract, sacred from any interference other than judicial construction. It is the duty of courts to preserve contracts inviolate rather than to destroy monopolies. If the common council had no power to grant the exclusive use of the streets, yet as the charter of the defendant company recognized and VOL. LV-1 Citizens' Water Co. v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. confirmed the grant by the city, it became as effective as if the city had had the power to make it, and as if the legislature had made it in the most direct and explicit words. By a clause in the charter of the defendant company the legislature reserved the power to recall the franchise at its pleasure. Held that this provision did not authorize the legislature to set aside or impair the contract which the city had entered into for the exclusive use of its streets by the defendant company so long as it should supply the city with water, and which the charter had recognized and confirmed. [Argued December 9th, 1886-decided February 25th, 1887]. A PROCEEDING for the condemnation to the use of the plaintiff company of certain property and water rights belonging to the defendant company, taken before Judge Sanford of the Superior Court. The defendant filed an answer to which the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was sustained pro forma by the judge and the answer held insufficient. The plaintiff appealed to this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion. C. R. Ingersoll, with whom were G. Stoddard and C. Sherwood, for the appellant. 1. Upon the incorporation of the Bridgeport Water Company a contract arose between the new corporation on the one side, and the city of Bridgeport and the state of Connecticut on the other, by which a right to the exclusive use of the streets of the city for a public water supply became vested in that corporation. And the constitution of the United States (Art. 1, Sec. 10), protects the obligation of this contract from any impairment by the legislation of the state. The answer of the defendant should, for this reason, have been held sufficient. This proposition involves a federal question. The decisions of the United States Supreme Court upon all questions arising upon the construction of the constitution must control the state courts. Trustees of Bishop's Fund v. Rider, 13 Conn., 93. It is well settled by the decisions of that court that a grant of a franchise may constitute an irrevocable contract, the obligation of which cannot be destroyed or impaired by any legislative action thereafter. Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat., 518; New |