Statement of the Case. The State, however, appropriated out of its treasury 40 per cent of the entire amount, to wit, $84,000, leaving the balance to be paid by these several towns, and such sums were paid. The act also provided that this public highway should thereafter be maintained by the towns assessed in proportion to their assessments, and that the first selectman of each of said towns should become ex officio member of a board, constituted a body politic and corporate, and charged with this duty of care and maintenance. On June 29, 1893, the legislature passed an act providing that said bridge and causeway should thereafter "be maintained by the State of Connecticut at its expense;" and that the Governor, with the consent of the senate, should appoint three commissioners, who should constitute "a board for the care, maintenance and control" of such bridge and highway. (Pub. Acts Conn. 1893, ch. 239, p. 395.) The bridge was a covered wooden bridge, which had been in existence for many years. On November 13, 1894, that board, acting through a majority of its members, made a contract with the Berlin Iron Bridge Company for the construction of a new bridge to cost $275,900. Some work had been done and some material furnished by the company, when on May 17, 1895, the old wooden bridge was entirely destroyed by fire. A week thereafter, and on May 24, 1895, the legislature passed an act (Pub. Acts Conn. 1895, ch. 168, p. 530) repealing the act of June 29, 1893, and directing that thereafter the five towns which had been assessed for the benefits accruing from the establishment of the public highway should maintain that highway, each of them bearing the share of the expense thereof fixed in the assessment proceedings. By the same act a commission was appointed to hear and determine all legal claims and demands (that of the Berlin Iron Bridge Company being specially named) arising under or by virtue of any contract made and executed by the board appointed under the act of 1893. The act provided that if the award of such commission was less than $40,000 the comptroller should draw his warrant on the treasurer for the amount thereof, to be paid upon the delivery of proper receipts, releases and discharges. It also VOL. CLXX-20 Statement of the Case. provided that if any party, particularly the Berlin Iron Bridge Company, should not be satisfied with the decision of said commission it might within three years commence and prosecute a suit against the State in the Superior Court of Hartford County for any legal claim, debt or demand arising under or by virtue of any valid contract made and executed by said board, and that in any event such Berlin Iron Bridge Company should be entitled to recover for all material furnished and all expenses of every kind actually incurred under said contract, including therein all legal and personal expenses; that on final judgment being rendered in such suit the comp troller should draw his order on the treasurer for the amount of the judgment; and further, if the contract which had been entered into should be declared valid and binding, the comp troller should carry out and complete the contract according to its provisions and draw his orders on the state treasurer for the cost thereof. Under this act the Berlin Iron Company presented its claim to the commission, which, on December 7, 1895, awarded to it the sum of $27,526. On December 13, 1895, the directors of the Berlin Iron Bridge Company voted to accept this award, and on the same day the company received the money and executed its release in the following words: 66 $27,526. HARTFORD, CONN., December 13, 1895. "Received of the State of Connecticut the sum of twentyseven thousand five hundred and twenty-six dollars in full of award made on the 7th day of December, 1895, by Hon. Dwight Loomis, Hon. Benj. P. Meade, comptroller, and Hon. George W. Hodge, treasurer of the State of Connecticut, acting as a commission constituted by chapter 168 of the Public Acts of 1895, and all other claims presented by this company to said commission are hereby withdrawn, and this payment is received in full satisfaction and discharge of all claims and demands of every nature which this company has or ought to have, arising under or by virtue of any contract made and executed by the commission appointed under chapter 239 of the Public Acts of 1893 with this company, and the within contract is hereby surrendered to the State of Connecticut." Statement of the Case. On June 28, 1895, the legislature passed an act (Special Acts Conn. ch. 343, p. 485), the first section of which is as follows: "SECTION 1. That the towns of Hartford, East Hartford, Glastonbury, Manchester and South Windsor be, and they are hereby created a body politic and corporate, with power to sue and be sued under the name of the Connecticut River bridge and highway district, for the construction, reconstruction, care and maintenance of a free public highway across the Connecticut River at Hartford and the causeway and approaches appertaining thereto, as described in a decree of the Superior Court of Hartford County, passed on the 10th day of June, 1889, in which decree said highway was laid out and established." It also created a board of commissioners for such district, to consist of eight members, four from the town of Hartford and one from each of the other towns, who were given authority to maintain such free public highway and to erect new bridges along or upon said highway, to reconstruct, raise and widen the causeway and approaches appurtenant thereto or a part of said highway, at the expense of the towns composing the district. In case of a vacancy in the board the vacancy was to be filled by the town in which the retiring member resided. This board was authorized to issue the bonds of the district, if need be, to an amount not exceeding $500,000 for the construction of a new bridge or causeway. The burden of construction and maintenance of this public highway was distributed in a proportion different from that named in the original assessment proceedings, the town of Hartford being required to pay seventy-nine one hundredths, East Hartford twelve one hundredths and Glastonbury, Manchester and South Windsor each three one hundredths. For all expenditures the board was directed to draw warrants upon the several towns, and such orders were declared sufficient authority for the treasurer of each of said towns to pay the amounts named therein, and the board was authorized to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for proper writs to compel the enforcement and execution of its orders. The board, having expended the sum of $500 in the ordinary support and main Opinion of the Court. tenance of this highway, on September 14, 1895, passed a resolution apportioning the amount, and drew a warrant on the treasurer of the town of Glastonbury for the sum of $15, its proportion of the sum expended. The treasurer of that town refused to pay this order, whereupon, on October 16, 1895, the board presented an application to the Superior Court of Hartford County for an alternative writ of mandamus against him. The writ was answered by the treasurer, and in his answer he set forth, among other defences, that the act of May 24, 1895, repealing the act of June 29, 1893, was in violation of the Constitution of the United States, section 10, Article I, because it impaired the obligation of a contract; that the proceedings of the board were also in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because they deprived the towns and the citizens thereof of their property without due process of law, and denied to them the equal protection of the laws. The Superior Court rendered judgment pro forma in favor of the board, and directed the issue of a peremptory writ of mandamus. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State this judgment was affirmed, June 25, 1896, State ex rel Bulkeley v. Williams, Treasurer, 68 Conn. 131, whereupon this writ of error was sued out. Mr. Lewis E. Stanton and Mr. John R. Buck for plaintiff in Mr. Olin R. Wood was on their brief. error. Mr. Lewis Sperry for defendant in error. Mr. George P. McLean and Mr. Austin Brainard were on his brief. MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. Inasmuch as the plaintiff in error, when sued in the state court, specifically set up certain sections of the Federal Constitution as a bar to the proceedings against him, and the judgment of the state court was that they constituted no such bar, it is not open to question that this court has jurisdiction, and the motion to dismiss must therefore be overruled. Opinion of the Court. The first contention of plaintiff in error is that the contract of November 13, 1894, made between the state board and the Berlin Iron Bridge Company, was a valid contract, and that the two acts of May 24, 1895, and June 28, 1895, together with the orders and proceedings of the board of commissioners thereunder, are in violation of the tenth section of Article I of the Federal Constitution, because they impair the obligation of that contract. A sufficient answer to this contention is, that the contract, if valid and upon that we express no opinion was between the State of Connecticut and the Berlin Iron Bridge Company, and that they have fully settled all differences in respect thereto. The parties to a contract are the ones to complain of a breach, and if they are satisfied with the disposition which has been made of it and of all claims under it, a third party has no right to insist that it has been broken. Counsel for plaintiff in error, conceding that an entire stranger cannot take advantage of any breach, insist that the town, though not a party to the contract, had an interest in its execution, for if it had been executed and the new bridge constructed and paid for by the State, the town would not now be under any obligations to assist in the construction of the new bridge. But this results, not from the mere adjustment between the State and the Berlin Iron Bridge Company, but by reason of the fact that the legislature, in the exercise of its unquestioned powers, has seen fit to cast the burden of the construction of a new bridge - which, as claimed, it had once assumed upon the towns. Even if the contract had been carried into effect, according to its terms, the legislature might, at the time of passing the act of 1895, have provided that the cost of such construction should be borne by the towns specially benefited thereby. It is not the breach of any contract, but an independent act of the legislature which casts the burden on the town of Glastonbury. The town is, therefore, an entire stranger to the contract, and this contention must be overruled. Again, it is insisted that the plaintiff in error is denied the equal protection of the laws because these five towns are put into a class by themselves, organized into a single municipal |