Ball v. Town of Branford
| Decision Date | 21 December 1954 |
| Citation | 110 A.2d 459,142 Conn. 13 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Elijah S. BALL v. TOWN OF BRANFORD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
T. Holmes Bracken, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Richard L. Reilly, East Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
William J. Willetts, New London, with whom, on the brief, was Griswold Morgan, New London, for appellee (defendant Malloy).
Macgregor Kilpatrick, Branford, appeared for appellee (named defendant).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
O'SULLIVAN, Justice.
The plaintiff brought this action to obtain an injunction restraining the defendants, the town of Branford and William H. Malloy, from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of certain oyster lots. The plaintiff also sought a judgment declaring invalid a grant of the lots from the town to Malloy, as well as a decree quieting title in the plaintiff and fixing the proper boundaries. The court found all the issues for the defendants but it did enjoin Malloy from interfering, during the course of a month, with the removal of spawning oysters which the plaintiff had previously planted upon the lots in question. From the judgment the plaintiff has appealed.
Although the plaintiff, in his assignments of error, has attacked many facts in the court's finding as having no support in the evidence, an examination of the transcript printed in the defendant Malloy's appendix indicates that the attack is wholly without merit. Equally futile is the plaintiff's effort to add thirty-seven paragraphs to the finding on the ground that the requested additions consist of admitted or undisputed facts. The effort amounts to nothing more than a request to us to accept, upon the conflicting evidence presented by the parties at trial, the version of the facts to which the plaintiff's witnesses testified. It is for the trier to pass upon the credibility of witnesses. Eastern Sportswear Co. v. S. Augstein & Co., 141 Conn. 420, 422, 106 A.2d 476; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., p. 122. This court cannot retry the case. African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Jenkins, 139 Conn. 418, 423, 94 A.2d 618.
No good purpose will be served by reciting the many complex facts found by the trier. For the purpose of this appeal, the following statement will suffice: The case involves the plaintiff's alleged rights in an oyster plantation consisting of four lots, known as Nos. 299, 302, 307 and 308, all lying under water between Flying Point and Leete's Island in the vicinity of the Thimble Islands. These lots, as well as those subsequently mentioned, lie within that part of Long Island Sound which falls within the territorial limits of the town of Branford and over which the selectmen of the town, by statute, are empowered to designate oyster lots to private persons. See General Statutes, §§ 5025, 5102 and Cum.Sup.1953, § 1924c.
In 1924, the plaintiff obtained, by quitclaim deed, the rights in numerous oyster lots then owned by the Stony Creek Oyster Company, a corporation that had been in the business of planting and cultivating oysters since 1870. During the course of its long existence this corporation had from time to time bought from others various oyster grants. A large number of deeds to the corporation are on record, but the boundaries of many of its lots are hard to ascertain or fix since they refer to rocks in the water and to various landmarks, including eel grass, which in the course of years have often disappeared completely or have changed their position. Subsequent to 1924, the plaintiff acquired additional lots from other parties.
On May 8, 1951, the defendant Malloy applied in writing to the selectmen of Branford for the designation to him of the four lots in question. The town clerk certified on the application that he had made a careful and thorough search of the oyster records of the town and that he was of the opinion that the four lots had not been previously designated. On October 30, 1951, the selectmen accepted Malloy's application and made the requested designation.
In recent years the plaintiff has used some parts of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cortes-Prete v. Ghiroli
... ... certain real property located in North Branford, Connecticut ... known as 681 and 681B Totoket Road (Trust property), bounded ... on ... recorded on July 1, 2014 together with an easement from the ... Trust to the Town of Wallingford. With this assurance, ... Wallingford Electric proceeded to dig. Prior to ... Gager v. Carlson, ... 146 Conn. 288, 289, 150 A.2d 302; Ball v. Town of ... Branford, 142 Conn. 13, 17, 110 A.2d 459; Padula v ... Padula, 138 ... ...
-
National Folding Box Co. v. City of New Haven
...v. Middlefield, supra, 143 Conn. 108, 120 A.2d 77; Greenberg v. Electric Boat Co., 142 Conn. 404, 408, 114 A.2d 850; Ball v. Branford, 142 Conn. 13, 17, 110 A.2d 459; Thaw v. Fairfield, 132 Conn. 173, 179, 43 A.2d 65, 160 A.L.R. 679; Burdick v. United States Finishing Co., 130 Conn. 455, 45......
- Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co. v. Clinton
-
Marquis v. Drost
...permitted to question that of the defendant, nor to assign as error the rulings of the trial court relating thereto. Ball v. Town of Branford, 142 Conn. 13, 17, 110 A.2d 459; Borden v. Town of Westport, 112 Conn. 152, 168, 151 A. 512; Roberts v. Merwin, 80 Conn. 347, 350, 68 A. 377. 'This i......