Carney v. Wilkinson

• Citation: 67 Conn. 345,35 A. 261
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 21 February 1896
• Parties: CARNEY et al. v. WILKINSON.

35 A. 261

67 Conn. 345

CARNEY et al.

v. WILKINSON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 21, 1896.

Error from superior court, New Haven county; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Complaint by Charles B. Wilkinson against Kate Carney and others to establish lost and uncertain bounds to lands. From the sustaining of a demurrer to defendant's remonstrance against the report of the committee appointed to establish such bounds, and the confirmation of its report, defendants bring error. Reversed.

James P. Platt and Cornelius J. Danaher, for plaintiffs in error.

George A. Fay, for defendant in error.

HAMERSLEY, J. Some questions of interest, and not free from doubt, involving the meaning and effect of the statute under which the original complaint was brought, were discussed in argument. They arise, however, on this writ of error, with such limitations that any consideration of their merits which does not extend beyond the issue directly involved must be unsatisfactory; and, as there is a fatal error apparent on the face of the record, we confine the decision to that error. The statute (section 2975 of the General Statutes) provides for an appointment, by the court to which a complaint for the establishment of lost and uncertain bounds is brought, of "a committee of not more than three disinterested freeholders, who * * * shall inquire into the facts, and erect and establish such lost and uncertain bounds, and may employ a surveyor to assist therein; and shall report the facts and their doings to the court." It then provides that the court may confirm said doings, and that certified copies of the report and decree of confirmation shall be recorded in the land records, and that "the bounds, so erected and established, shall be the bounds between said proprietors." It is clear that upon proof of material misconduct on the part of the committee in erecting and establishing such bounds, the court must reject their report. Even when the report of a committee of a similar character is held to be conclusive as the judgment of a special statutory tribunal, their report may be set aside for "misconduct on the part of the committee, or irregularity in their proceedings." Suffield v. East Granby, 52 Conn. 175, 180. In the present case the committee reported: "I find that the land records of the town contain boundaries and descriptions which enable a surveyor, with some assistance from the recollection of living witnesses, to fix the location of the disputed bound with reasonable certainty. I therefore proceed to fix the location of said bound, and establish it as follows." The defendants in the complaint remonstrated against the acceptance of the report, and said that the report ought to be...