15 Vt. 757 | Vt. | 1843
The opinion of the court was delivered- by
The object of this bill is, -to compel the defendants to pay the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars, expended by the orators in making a road in the year 1828, which was afterwards surveyed and made a part of the turnpike road of the defendants. The claim of the orators is so intimately connected with the proceedings which have heretofore been had in this court on the subject of the Passumpsic Turnpike, and rests so much on the orders which have heretofore been made, that a brief recital of the former proceedings is necessary to a right understanding of the case, and to explain the grounds on which the court have formerly proceeded, and on which they now decide.
The turnpike was surveyed and laid out at an early day, and, as was very usual with the roads laid out at that time, it was found, after the country became more settled, that a better place for the road might have been selected. On the petition of Ira Goodrich and several inhabitants of Barnet, a committee was appointed, who laid out another road between the turnpike, as made, and Connecticut river, which must have taken the principal part of the travel which had before passed on the turnpike road. This road, thus laid by that committee, was made by the town of Barnet, the orators. Under an act of the legislature, passed in 1822, this court, on the petition of the present defendants, appointed a committee to survey, lay out, and alter the Passumpsic turnpike road, who laid out the same on something over a mile of the road laid out by the committee on the petition of Ira Goodrich, and which was made by the town of Barnet, at the cost of six hundred and fifty dollars. The committee, who thus re-surveyed the turnpike, made a report and return of their
A scire facias was instituted, in behalf of the state, against the turnpike company to repeal their charter. A trial was had, first on demurrer, and then on an issue of fact, and a verdict was returned against the corporation, that their charter was forfeited; and, in pursuance of a provision in the statute, they made application to the court in writing, and set forth reasons why the charter ought not, in equity, to be forfeited. The objections to the report of the committee, laying out and altering the turnpike road, and the application of the turnpike company, in equity, that the forfeiture should not be adjudged, were heard together, at the term of this court in March, 1834. Before entering up any judgment in either of the cases, the court required the bond to be executed and deposited with the clerk, which is set forth in the orator’s bill; and, on the filing of that bond, judgment was entered up, that the report of the committee laying the turnpike road, be accepted, and that the charter of the company, in equity, ought not to be forfeited. The condition of the bond is, that Stevens, who represented the turnpike company, should pay the town of Barnet the sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars and interest, on or before the first day of April, 1835, and the like sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars and interest, on or before the first day of April, 1836; to which there was this proviso, “that the * town should accept said bond on or before the first day of £ August then next, or said bond shall be void ; and further, £ that the bond shall be deemed and taken to be in full pay- £ ment and satisfaction of all claims or demands in favor of £ said town of Barnet against the Passumpsic turnpike com- £ pany, for making of any road in said Barnet, and accepted £ by said turnpike company as part or parts of their turnpike
The claim of the orators, to the relief asked for in this bill, must be supported, either on the ground that they have an equitable claim against the defendants, arising from their having made the road, which was afterwards covered by the survey of the turnpike, made by the committee appointed by this court, or in consequence of the bond which was left with the cleric for their benefit, as before mentioned. Neither of these grounds are tenable.
In making the road laid out by the committee, on the petition of Ira Goodrich, the town performed a duty to the public, imposed on them by law, — not for their own benefit particularly, or exclusively, but for the use of the whole community. They had no property in the road whatever, more than any other town, or any individual. The burthen of making the road, and of keeping it in repair, was laid on them by law, from considerations of public policy alone. This duty is frequently cast on towns against their wishes, and also against their individual interest. The same power which authorized the laying the road could discontinue it at any time; and the road would revert, not to the town, but to the individuals who are owners of the'land. In laying, altering, or discontinuing roads, it has never been thought, or considered, that the towns were entitled to any compensation for the moneys by them expended in making the road. Whenever a turnpike is granted, it is supposed that between the termini, they will have to take part or parts of a road already made by towns, and the right to locate a turnpike road on any old highway has been repeatedly recognized by this court in cases reported and not reported. The easement which the public acquired, or the right to pass over a highway, legally made and opened, they may relinquish at any
The only inquiry remaining is, whether, in consequence of the bond executed by Mr. Stevens, who is considered as the owner of the turnpike, and which is to be treated as a voluntary bond, procured by the defendants, in pursuance of the orders and proceedings had in this court, at their March term, 1834, already recited, the orators have now any claim against the defendants which the court of chancery can decree. The bond was to be void, unless accepted by the town by the first of August next after it was made. Their acceptance was a condition precedent to its being delivered. The orators did not vote to accept it until the November
If it was proper for the court to do any thing on this bill, it could not be to set up this bond, which has become void by reason of the town not complying with the only condition on which it was to be operative, but by permitting them again to litigate the acceptance of the report before mentioned, and go into an inquiry as to their equitable claim for compensation, which we have already considered as unfounded.
We cannot discover, in this case, any unforeseen event, loss, or omission, which prevented the town from accepting the bond, or any unintentional act or omission arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaced confidence, that should entitle them to relief, on the score of accident or mistake. But they have lost their bond and their security at law upon the same, by their own negligence and want of attention, and the court cannot relieve them from the consequence of their non-performance of the condition required. And it is somewhat of a remarkable feature in this case that, although there has been litigation on the subject of this turnpike, and between the orators and defendants, in one shape or another-, before the court and the legislature, for so long a time, no call should have been made on the clerk of this court for this bond, while it lay with him, for the benefit of the orators, from March to August, and that no vote should be passed by the town to accept it until November after the session of the legislature, and then accompanied with a resolution instructing the selectmen, their agents, to buckle on the armor for battle, or ground their arms, as they should think proper, and report at their next March meeting, in 1835,