Whenever the boundaries of any highway have been lost or become uncertain, the selectmen of any town in which such highway is located, upon the written application of any of the proprietors of land adjoining such highway, may cause to be made a map of such highway, showing the fences and bounds as actually existing, and the bounds as claimed by adjoining proprietors, and shall also cause to be placed on such map such lines as in their judgment coincide with the lines of the highway as originally laid down. Such selectmen shall cause a notice to be printed for at least two days in a daily paper having a general circulation in the town in which such highway is located, and shall send a written or printed notice to each known adjoining proprietor on such highway, setting forth the name or location of the highway, a description of the portions to be reestablished, the place and time where such map may be seen, and the time, not less than two weeks from the date of the issue of such notice, when and place where all parties interested may be heard under oath in regard to such reestablishment. Such selectmen may adjourn such hearing from time to time and, upon reaching a decision, shall cause the same to be published as aforesaid and a notice of the same to be sent to all known adjoining proprietors. Such decision shall specifically define the line of such highway and the bounds thereof and shall be recorded in the records of the town in which such highway is located, and the lines and bounds so defined and established shall be the bounds of such highway unless changed by the Superior Court upon appeal from such decision of the selectmen.
(1949 Rev., S. 2166; 1958 Rev., S. 13-49; 1963, P.A. 226, S. 40; P.A. 76-436, S. 329, 681.)
History: 1963 act replaced previous provisions: See title history; P.A. 76-436 substituted superior court for court of common pleas, effective July 1, 1978.
See Sec. 13a-37 re determination of boundaries by Transportation Commissioner.
As to former acts. 73 C. 575. Scope of act; procedure before selectmen. 83 C. 101. All steps provided to be strictly followed; various points considered. 84 C. 646. Legislature intended board of selectmen to determine the width and length of the highway under section. 309 C. 608. Prior judicial determination of a highway's public status is not a jurisdictional condition precedent to a proceeding under section and various mistakes made by board of selectmen during proceeding were not jurisdictional because they did not implicate notice to the public, thus allowing any defect to be cured by trial de novo under Sec. 13a-40. 328 C. 615.
Cited. 14 CA 521. Town's board of selectmen exceeded its authority when it determined that a highway existed on plaintiff's property where a highway did not previously exist. 131 CA 24; judgment reversed, see 309 C. 608. Recourse to section presupposes a prior determination that the road in question has been deemed a public highway. 137 CA 1.
Cited. 11 CS 429. Selectmen have no discretion; their duty is precise. 15 CS 404. Cited. 27 CS 472.
Notes of Decisions
Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Lyme, 181 A.3d 531 (Conn. 2018).
· cites it 78× “Marchesi, appeals 1 from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her appeal, brought pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-40, 2 from the decision of the defendants, the town of Lyme (town) and its Board of Selectmen (board), 3 determining the lost or uncertain **619 boundaries…”
Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of Lyme, 28 A.3d 994 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 66× “In 2006, several other proprietors of real property abutting Brockway Ferry Road filed a petition, pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-39, requesting that the board define the boundaries of Brockway Ferry Road, particularly at its western end, in the area of the plaintiff's…”
Montanaro v. Aspetuck Land Trust, Inc., 48 A.3d 107 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 18× “The defendants claim that the court improperly (1) found that Old 2 Rod Highway properly was accepted as a public highway and was not abandoned subsequently, (2) determined the location of the alleged highway in violation of General Statutes § 13a-39 and (3) granted both an…”
Hamann v. Town of Newtown, 541 A.2d 899 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 14× “Pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-39, 2 the plaintiffs applied to the board for a deter *523 mination of the boundaries of Kale Davis road, which boundaries the plaintiffs alleged had become lost or uncertain.”
Gianetti v. Dunsby, 191 A.3d 260 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “For example, General Statutes § 13a-39 authorizes a board of selectmen to define the boundaries of a highway in their municipality that "have been lost or become uncertain .”
Gianetti v. Dunsby (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “For example, General Statutes § 13a-39 authorizes a board of selectmen to define the boundaries of a highway in their municipality that ‘‘have been lost or become uncertain .”
Town of Woodbridge v. Merwin, 244 A.2d 57 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1968).
“In § 13a-39, the selectmen are not given a similar power to condemn land to relocate the boundaries or limits of highways in the town which may have become lost or uncertain.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.