notice is given of acceptance by the common council of the report of said board, make application for relief to the Superior Court, and said application having been duly made and served, the Superior Court "may, by committee or otherwise, inquire into the allegations of such application duly made as aforesaid, and may confirm, annul, or modify the said assessments." It will be noticed that this Act does not refer to the proceeding as an appeal, but as an application for relief, and that under it the court, by committee or otherwise, may inquire into the allegations of the application duly made. It is apparent that in proceedings of the character of the one now under review it was the intent of the makers of this statute that the assessments made by the municipal authorities should be treated as valid and correct, except in so far as they might be questioned by the allegations contained in the applications for relief. See Park City Yacht Club v. Bridgeport, 81 Conn. 76, 81, 70 A. 631; Hill v. Waterbury, 84 Conn. 319, 80 A. 202. It has been held by this court that these actions are judicial proceedings, and that parties who resort to them must state their cases as in actions at law. Bowditch v. New Haven, 40 Conn. 503, 510; Hill v. Waterbury, 84 Conn. 319, 80 A. 202.
These cases are not authoritative, they called for the interpretation of the charters of other municipalities whose language is entirely different from that of the Hartford charter. In Hill v. Waterbury, 84 Conn. 319, 80 A. 202, the charter granted an appeal from "any act of the board of aldermen or of any department." In Peck v. Bridgeport, 75 Conn. 417, 421, 53 A. 893, Keifer v. Bridgeport, 68 Conn. 401, 410, 36 A. 801, and Citizens Association v. Bridgeport, 84 Conn. 383, 386, 80 A. 203, the charter provided that the court on appeal "may inquire into the validity of all the proceedings on which said assessment is based.