Connecticut Reports Vol 57 PDF Download

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 edition. Excerpt: ...here, they are not here complaining of that; "and fih the Plmlltllffi themselves had such notice, they cannot avflll emselves here of want of notice to the remai11der111611 Assuming, then, for the purpose of argument, that if the plaintifls had no notice at all of the meetings of the council or the board of appraisal, here in question, the assessment complained of would be void as to them, the question is, did they have such notice as makes the assessment binding upon them unless appealed from. Under the city cl1a.1'tertl1e proper authorities clearly had the power to pave the street, and to assess benefits therefor, as they attempted to do in this case; 12 Special Laws, p. 537, 57; and if in doing these things they gave due notice thereof to the plaintiffs, then the acts of the city authorities would be binding upon the plaintiffs, unless appealed from in the manner provided by law. New Haven v. Fair Haven Q' W. R. 00., 38 Conn. 422, 430; Ii'ez_'fer V. Bridgeport, 68 id. 401, 411. Notice of the hearing before the common council, upon the order to " asphalt" Main Street, was apparently required to be given by publication twice in certain daily newspapers of the city. It appears that such notice was not given in this way, but notice was directed by the council to be given to the " estate of Carlos Curtis " and that such a notice was served personally upon the plaintifi as executrix. It thus appears that the executrix, who was also the life tenant and only ascertained person interested in the land, had ample, reasonable and certain notice of the hearing before the common council upon the order to " asphalt " the street. The object of notice is to give the party notified an opportunity to...