309 A.2d 844 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1973
On November 5, 1971, the defendant The Southern New England Telephone Company, hereinafter called SNETCO, under Docket No. 11200 filed a proposed amendment of its rate schedule with the defendant public utilities commission, hereinafter called PUC, in accordance with §
A bond for payment of costs in the event the appeal is not sustained was fixed by the PUC under §
The question before the court is of exceptional and decisive importance. Its precedential value could have great bearing on the future course and trend of appeals from the PUC. Appeals to the courts from administrative boards and agencies exist only under statutory authority. East SideCivic Assn. v. Planning Zoning Commission,
Section 16-39 provides: "Each such appeal shall be a supersedeas of the order, authorization or decision appealed from, provided the court to which any such appeal is brought, or, if such court is not in session, any judge of the court of common pleas may, at any time, order that such appeal shall not so operate if, in the opinion of such court or judge, the appeal is brought for purposes of delay or if justice or equity or public safety or expediency so requires; or such court or judge may order that such appeal shall so operate only upon compliance by the parties, or any of them, with such terms or conditions as such court or judge may determine." In an appeal under the UAPA, however, it is provided contrariwise in §
Initially, the court must resolve which of these statutes applies here. Public Acts 1911, chapter 128, *248
the origin of title 16, chapter 277, contained in § 33 the first provision for an automatic supersedeas or stay in substantially the form of § 16-39 today. The enactment of the UAPA sixty years later has cast a long shadow upon this well-established procedure. Sections 16-39 and
Other enactments of the 1971 and 1973 sessions of the legislature shed light on its intent in the adoption of the UAPA. Public Acts 1971, No. 621, although vetoed by the governor, is still relevant in its legislative consideration and action. Section 1 thereof amended §
Subsequent enactments may throw light on the legislative intent of a former related act. GeneralRealty Improvement Co. v. New Haven,
The request for further bond for costs in the amount of $500,000 is without precedent or parallel in our jurisdiction. In brief, it is without authority. No right to a supersedeas exists except by virtue of express statutory authorization. Case v. HermitageCotton Mills,
The fundamental principle is that every litigant must bear his own expenses of litigation except as otherwise provided by statute. Nesbit v. Rose-HurstFarms, Inc.,
SNETCO seeks to come within an exception to these general principles of taxing costs, relying *252
upon Welles v. Schroeder,
We are left with the sole question whether what SNETCO seeks to cover is a taxable cost under §
SNETCO's motion to require additional bond is, therefore, overruled.