Aczas v. Stuart Heights, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 July 1966
• Citation: 221 A.2d 589,154 Conn. 54
• Parties: Anthony A. ACZAS et al. v. STUART HEIGHTS, INC., et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 589

221 A.2d 589

154 Conn. 54

Anthony A. ACZAS et al. v. STUART HEIGHTS, INC., et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

July 5, 1966.

Fred B. Rosnick, Waterbury, for appellant (named defendant).

J. Warren Upson, Waterbury, with whom, on the brief, was Donald McPartland, Southbury, for appellees (plaintiffs).

Before KING, C.J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, HOUSE and THIM, JJ.

HOUSE, Associate Justice.

This action was brought in three counts, but only the first two are involved in this appeal. The first count alleges the breach of a covenant against encumbrances contained in a warranty deed in the usual form running from the named defendant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, to the plaintiffs. The second alleges misrepresentation predicated upon the same covenant. The only alleged encumbrance relevant to this appeal consists of an easement to the city of Waterbury to construct and maintain a sanitary sewer line through the premises conveyed to the plaintiffs. The court generally found the issues for the plaintiffs and rendered judgment awarding damages in the amount of $4000, from which judgment the defendant has taken this appeal.

The finding is not subject to material correction. There was no error in the refusal of the court to include in the finding the evidential matters contained in the defendant's draft finding. Practice Book § 649. Nor is it required that the court's finding in any paragraph be in the identical language of the request, although the latter is sustained by evidence. It is sufficient that the fact itself is found. Mad River Co. v. Pracney, 100 Conn. 466, 471, 123 A. 918.

One ruling on evidence requires preliminary consideration. A licensed land surveyor called as a witness by the plaintiffs testified that he had inspected and surveyed the subject property, had examined a map and record of the santiary sewer line easement in the city engineer's office and, as a result of this survey, inspection and examination, had prepared a map which reflected his opinion as to the course of the sewer easement and pipe running through the plaintiffs' land. The defendant objected to the map as an exhibit because it purported to show the exact location of the sewer easement, but it was admitted over this objection. Under the circumstances, the 'map was no more than the pictorial representation of the testimony of the witness through whom it was offered in evidence; Banks v. Watrous, 134 Conn. 592, 595, 59 A.2d 723 (4 A.L.R.2d 286); or, as Professor Wigmore puts it, 'a non-verbal mode of expressing a witness' testimony.' 3 Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed. p. 175.' Staff v. Hawkins, 135 Conn. 316, 320, 64 A.2d 176, 178. Furthermore, the existence of the twenty-foot right of way over the subject property in the location depicted on the exhibit with the trunk sewer installed approximately in the center of the right of way was subsequently confirmed by an assistant engineer for the city of Waterbury, who had supervised the installation of the sewer line in June, 1956. See Sondik v. Beth El Temple of West Hartford, Inc., 152 Conn. 712, 714, 207 A.2d 583. The map was properly admitted as an exhibit.

From the evidence presented, the court found that the premises shown as lot 5, in section 3, on a map of Stuart Heights on file in the office of the Waterbury town clerk in Map Book 29, page 88, was conveyed to the plaintiffs by the defendant in November, 1961, by a warranty deed in which the defendant covenanted that the land was free from all encumbrances except those stated in the deed. The deed did not include among the encumbrances recited therein any statement that the land was subject to an easement to the city of Waterbury for the construction and maintenance of a sanitary sewer line. Significantly, however, the deed did recite that the premises were subject to a mortgage from the defendant to the Savings and Loan Association of Waterbury, Inc., which was recorded in volume 806, page 433, of the Waterbury land records. This mortgage deed, executed in January, 1961, by the defendant acting through the same corporate officer who later in November executed the warranty deed to the plaintiffs, recited that the premises were '(s)ubject to: * * * 3. Sanitary sewer easement to City of Waterbury 20 ft. wide crosses the above lot.' The map of section 3 of Stuart Heights, filed in the town clerk's office in Map Book 29, page 88, prior to the January, 1961, mortgage and to which specific reference was made in the warranty deed to the plaintiffs, shows a twelve-inch sanitary sewer line in a twenty-foot right of way located on or under lot 5. The court, with counsel, also inspected the premises and found thereon manholes spaced along the twelve-inch sanitary sewer line crossing the plaintiffs' land.

There is no record of a conveyance to the city of Waterbury of an easement over the premises. The city claims to have acquired its easement by eminent domain. The charter of the city of Waterbury provides that all sewer construction shall be under the supervision of the department of public works and that the board of public works is empowered, following a vote of the board of aldermen authorizing the construction, to 'take and appropriate for the city any * * * estate, right, privilege or franchise necessary or advisable for the construction of such sewers.' Waterbury Charter § 3141 (1957); 21 Spec.Laws 637, § 259. Without reciting in detail the finding of the court, it suffices for us to note that the board of public works, acting pursuant to the authority of the charter and following customary procedures as to notice and hearing, in 1956 laid out in the area a twenty-foot sanitary sewer right of way and easement which crossed the subject property then owned by the defendant. The bureau of assessments assessed damages and benefits to the persons affected by the proposed public improvements and determined that as to the defendant the benefits equaled the damages. The report of the bureau of assessments was accepted and adopted by the board of aldermen and was recorded in the Waterbury land records. The records of these various public bodies disclosing reports to them and their actions thereon were admissible to show their doings. Alderman v. New Haven, 81 Conn. 137, 142, 70 A. 626, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 74. A twelve-inch sanitary sewer was constructed over the easement on the subject property in June, 1956.

The city was not a party to this action, and ...