# State v. American News Co.

> Supreme Court of Connecticut · June 16, 1964 · 152 Conn. 101

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718504

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Connecticut v. the American News Company Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Connecticut
- **Decided:** June 16, 1964
- **Citations:** 152 Conn. 101; 203 A.2d 296; 1964 Conn. LEXIS 329
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Murphy
- **Judges:** King, Murphy, Shea, Comley, Shapiro
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718504

## Opinion text

Murphy, J.
(dissenting). It seems rather farcical to me for this court to put the stamp of approval on the inequitable conduct of the state in this case when it would have condemned such action had the state not been the offender. When the invitation to bid was sent out on July 29,1955, the highway commissioner had in his possession, and was contemplating action in accordance with, two special reports which he had requested from the traffic engineers who were advising him. The information in these reports was not forwarded to the bidders although, after the bids were received and the contract with the defendant executed, the commissioner proceeded to put into effect the recommendations of the engineers.
The 1954 report which was sent to the bidders was based on a fifteen-cent toll rate. The May, 1955, report recommended increasing the toll rate west of New Haven to twenty-five cents, although this change would decrease the traffic through the toll stations by 23 percent. In other words, the revenue through tolls would be greater, but the number of travelers on the turnpike who would be potential customers at the restaurants would fall off by almost one-quarter. The May, 1955, report also discussed the issuance of low-rate commuter tickets which would increase the number of vehicles passing through the toll stations. The likelihood that these short-haul customers would work up an appetite on their trips would be slim. But the bidders were not advised that, as a result of the reports, the commissioner was given statutory authority at the special session of the legislature in June, 1955, to grant *119 reduced tolls to commuter traffic. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1955, No. 52, §4; Cum. Sup., 1955, § 1212d (General Statutes § 13-162 [b]). That act became effective on June 29, 1955, but was not published until after August 16, 1955. Yet the defendant is chargeable with knowledge of this change in the law although the invitation to bid made no mention of commuter traffic and the bids had to be in on August 10, 1955.
The estimate of 44,940,000 toll-station vehicle trips in 1958 was set out in the contract as the basic standard measure to be used in computing the defendant’s liability under the contract. Twenty-three percent of that figure is 10,336,200, which the trial court should have added to the 44,940,000 to compensate for the reduction in toll traffic due to the increase in toll fare. The result would be 55,276,200. The trial court should have reformed the contract by substituting 55,276,200 as the basic standard measure. In any fiscal year in which the number of toll-station vehicle trips, exclusive of commuter ticket traffic, exceeded 55,276,200, the minimum annual guaranteed rental would be due. This disposition would be equitable and negate the underlying philosophy of the state’s position that “[t]he King can do no wrong.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718504. Public record. Not legal advice.